Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

RfC: Geographic disambiguation of school article titles in the United States

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geographic disambiguation of school article titles in the United States

 – I made the VPP page too big. Since there are multiple discussions about (NO)LLMs on VPP, I'm moving this topic instead even though #Promote WP:LLM from guideline to policy? has more comments, so that all the (NO)LLM discussions can remain on the same page. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 05:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Should templates containing article body content be allowed?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia policies and guidelines Wikipedia technical issues and templates When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Under what circumstances should templates be allowed to contain article body text?

Option 1: Never (i.e. substitute out all templates in Category:Article shared content templates)

Option 2A (de facto status quo): When content is sufficiently similar between articles that the same wording may be used with only changes in parameters (e.g. {{Named storms intro}} being used for List of named storms (A) to List of named storms (Z))

Option 2B (closest to de jure status quo): Option 2A but only when there is no expectation that the content within the template will need to be edited

Sdkb ^talk 16:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Are we making it clear to new editors what our policies surrounding AI use are?

Hi all. From my experience in recent weeks at AfD, and in the past couple of days at the Teahouse, it seems as though a great number of editors appear to be entirely unaware of our AI usage policies. Though it can't be said for certain whether they're being entirely honest in this regard, I'm wondering if it might be prudent to offer a notice in the draft space for new users that simply indicates this fact, given that many go to AfC as a preliminary step without reaching autoconfirmed status first. Even then, is it unreasonable to suggest offering a similar notice for autoconfirmed users on publishing pages until their first (completed) page creation? Just think it might help us to cut down on good faith actors at AfC and AfD, and reduce the extent to which feigned ignorance can be used as a justification for LLM use in such cases.

All the best, and look forward to the discussion,

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a note on the AfC wizard that AI-generated content is not allowed, but iirc it's rather low down in a list of other points; I went looking for it recently and only saw it because I was looking. I would definitely support making this information more visible somehow! I think this is a good idea: a similar notice for autoconfirmed users on publishing pages until their first (completed) page creation. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

LLM Paste Check, if it's triggered, also pops up a notification telling you not to use AI (although, confusingly, it does offer an option to keep the text, kind of a mixed message). Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it'd be a better use of screenspace than either the licensing notice below the edit box or the copyright infringement one above it, or both put together for that matter, but there isn't anything equivalent in the visual editor. —Cryptic 22:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

We can change the notice. On Spanish Wikipedia iirc correctly, they warn much more for copyright violtions. I'd say it needs a pretty clear discussion given the wide reach. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 03:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, not allowed is one thing, explanation of consequences is another. We need to tell people that they may be wasting their time by using AI because there are people and tools that will detect it and remove it. Telling people that robbing banks is not allowed may have little effect if they are not aware of the consequences. The key consequence here would be that they will waste their time. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think our policies on AI are clear to ourselves. BD2412 T 23:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I spent the day yesterday adding our LLM policies to various templates facing new users (AfC presubmission template), and making it clearer in others (G15 user talk message, Article Wizard). I also added it to our many WP:simplified ruleset-like pages. @Mathglot added something friendly (but maybe a bit cryptic) to our welcome templates. The big missing one is the edit window, but that would need clear prior consensus. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 03:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Looked at Help:Introduction, assuming I am a good-faith user who actually is going to try to look at this stuff, and, well.

• The "Policies and guidelines" button is small, right below a big glowing blue button to "Get started." The UI is telling me that this is fine print I don't have to click.
• If you click that, the "Policies and guidelines" button becomes blue, but it's still small and shunted off into the corner; meanwhile; beneath the welcome paragraph are two sandbox edit buttons and a list of links that take editors directly to possible tasks, both of which seem likely to become offramps away from the policies.
• 3 clicks in, we finally get something about AI. Unfortunately, it doesn't link to NOLLM and instead links to "basic copyediting," which is more permissive than what NOLLM allows. It also doesn't actually say what AI tools include (since this is often a point of confusion for people). The Neutrality section does have a quiz, so a quiz for AI use might be helpful for the 5 people who end up seeing it. (Questions like "which one of these edits is not basic copyediting?" and "which one of these is not an AI tool?")
• The restriction on AI completely disappears in the "summary of policies" at the end.

That being said I don't know how many people are actually using this stuff. I certainly didn't. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a good find! The main Help:Introduction gets viewed more than 100,000 times a month. I've added a friendly "Just make sure it is you, not an AI improving Wikipedia." Does that work well as wording?

When we go down the policy and guidelines pages, the pageviews drop to about 2000 a month. I've removed the link to basic copyediting, and changed the wording to be in line with NOLLM. In the summary (only 1200 views), I've removed the explanation of the difference between policies and guidelines and have added some text about AI. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff That's part of why I think it might be worth considering highlighting it at AFC in line with the concerns raised by Suðurhafsljósæta. And, to my original question, might it be worth it to consider a general AI notice on page creations; would there be any way to restrict it to someone's first page creation so it doesn't become a redundancy? Or might the redundancy prove beneficial (i.e constantly reiterating the site's position to users who might assume that, as models get better, they don't need to care as much because they see the primary issue with LLM use being the quality of prose that they produce, rather than the moralistic concerns raised by longtime editors)?

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

we may wish to put them on welcome templates. Tankishguy 17:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

This vas already been done to a certain extent, I know that Template:Welcoming that I like to use was tweaked months ago for example. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should have a notification next to the copyright/verifiability notice shown now, about AI. BooksBooksBooks3 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Second this.

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps a strong notification. In most places in the US there are "No Parking" signs. Once when I was in New York, I saw a sign that said "Don't even think of parking here!". We do not want to push new users away, but a more than gentle sign wold be good, e.g. "If you use AI, chances are good that your edits will be reverted soon". Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

FYI there is currently a discussion at Template talk:Talk header § Add note about WP:AITALK to add a similar smaller notice to the {{talk header}}. FaviFake (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think its been done in a coherent and WP wide way. The two templates I use for welcoming haven't been updated with a warning. scope_creep^Talk 17:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AI agent policy

We need an AI agent policy. An agent accessing Wikipedia should easily find a policy that addresses agents by name, presenting crystal clear rules in unambiguous terms. That alone may deter some activity with reasonable guardrails, but at minimum we should create the conditions where an agent must decide (autonomously or with human consent) to violate our policies and the Terms of Use. I think Wikipedia:AI agent policy does that.

This isn't a !vote/proposal yet. Curious to get some thoughts first.

Some additional context: Yes, the bot policy technically applies to agents, but that policy is expansive, process-heavy, and doesn't mention the word "agent" once. We need something that is explicit, easily discoverable, unambiguous, and concise. There have been a lot of good ideas and explanations floated since the TomWikiAssist incident, and apologies for bypassing those efforts, but they all appear to have stalled and, more importantly, operate at a much more complicated level than I'd like to see. In my view, there is still much work to do to tailor the bot policy to agents, which is where the complexity should live, but I don't want to tackle that here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess you mean something like Wikipedia's AGENTS.md. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

In terms of function, I think they're complementary. Having an agents.md might help with discoverability, but we still need a formal Wikipedia policy to establish authority, which is in turn referenced by the Terms of Use. A theoretical agents.md could then be useful to point to this policy, but the idea of a "policy" on Wikipedia as being an expression of community governance endorsed by the Terms of Use has more authority than an agents.md file would have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: There's been previous work on this at Wikipedia:Agent policy, which alongside a baseline policy, also dives into possible requirements for agents to be approved, and ways to make the policy discoverable – could it be a good starting point? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Either way, it could be good to have it also written down in an agent-readable .md format for agents themselves. Also noting Wikipedia:AI agents and the bot policy, although that is an explanatory essay. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Really happy to see you revive this discussion, and I would be more than rejoiced to merge our two proposals! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

[Actually meant to ping you above but I guess I forgot. Sorry about that.] Indeed, there are multiple pages that deal with this subject, as well as many talk page/noticeboard discussions. None of them appeared to be doing what I think we need. That page, for example, is dominated by a discussion of a "guardrail package", which is in the broad category of specifics and procedural detail that's exactly what I'm trying to exclude. The other one you link is useful, but framed entirely in the context of the bot policy. We need something that stands on its own to set out clear rules, and defers to the bot policy for procedure. All of these particulars are important and need attention and future work, but we have a clear and urgent need for a succinct, baseline policy. I felt like I had a clear idea for what that should be, so I went ahead with it. I do apologize if I'm stepping on toes (you've done much more to further the interests of Wikipedia in the AI era than anyone, I think), but I'm hoping it can still be evaluated as it stands. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

No worries – it's impossible to do everything alone, and I'm more than happy to see you go at it! Having a clear direction is really essential, and I do feel like yours captures the most important points. One thing from the previous draft I would like to add is making explicit that IAR doesn't apply to agents (mostly as a matter of practicality, really: agents are uncannily good at abusing loopholes and justifying it, and we don't want to give them this kind of wiggle room).

In any case, an RfC on the baseline policy (likely yours or a modified version of it) would be essential, and only then can we start to build upon it and see what we could require of agents as prerequisites for a BRfA.

PS: You're not stepping on any toes here – the fact that I worked on a similar idea before doesn't mean I own the concept or anything, and bringing a clear proposal on the table is a great thing to see! I was mostly curious about how the two could mesh together, but looks like you already answered that! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a partial response for now, but adding IAR is an excellent idea. Added. Feel free to tweak. And on the RfC, my plan was to post this, make edits based on feedback here, and then launch an RfC (posted at CENT, of course) in a few days. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Amazing plan, go ahead! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This sounds very timely - we're seeing a good few more attempts to use agents now, though I think in practice they are all blocked on sight. I think the key thing to emphasise with anything like this is that while the bot approvals process might in principle be able to allow agents, that "in principle" is pretty much theoretical and doesn't reflect the reality of "but at the moment, we're not going to". Wikipedia:AI agents and the bot policy gets a bit sidetracked by this aspect.

I think your proposed approach with Wikipedia:AI agent policy makes it a lot clearer. There are a couple of edge cases which might be worth considering, with an eye to @Chaotic Enby's point about wiggle room. "These requirements apply even when an agent .... makes only a single edit" suggests it cannot edit the wiki without approval (great) but then we also say it should consult with BAG, which would imply permission to edit to ask the question. We might want to explicitly say we mean no edits of any kind, even in project or userspace, prior to approval.

And as a corollary we might want to explicitly say the agent should not submit its own bot approval request (or queries to BAG), but rather that that those edits must be made by the supervising human? Or is that a step further than you would want? Andrew Gray (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I understood it must not perform that action and should instead seek clarification from the Bot Approvals Group as implying that this should be done instead of making any other edits without approval, i.e. the request itself is not banned by the policy. Ultimately, the case where this distinction matters would be fully autonomous agents (without a human supervising them at any meaningful level), which I don't expect to pass BRfA anytime soon.

However, I can see a loophole with agents bludgeoning the BAG by wasting their time with a massive amount of queries. In that case, yes, I believe it is beneficial to clarify that those requests and queries must be made by the supervising human. Maybe ...should instead request its human supervisor to seek clarification from the Bot Approvals Group instead? With a line clarifying that agents with no supervision will not be approved. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

But how do we know if an agent will be supervised tomorrow, if it is claimed to be supervised today? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm broadly inclined to move all of the particulars to the bot approvals process and policy rather than try to address them here. It does leave the conflict identified above, though: saying an agent can never edit but must request permission to edit [by making an edit]. That would be solved be requiring a human to request approval, I suppose, or by creating a space where the agents can ask for permission. Is there a nonzero chance an agent request could ever be approved? If not, we might as well just say a human must submit it, right? Though it's still not clear whether that should be here or at the bot policy. At the risk of a tangent, I was also thinking of a single board where agents were allowed to edit, to ask questions about agentic activity on Wikipedia, about the bot approvals process, and so on. Could be interesting for transparency. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the only safe way would be a strong version of what you suggested as "I was also thinking of a single board where agents were allowed to edit, to ask questions about agentic activity on Wikipedia". If you also have a suggestion space, the agent can suggest an edit and a human with a long term edit history has to approve it. That can begin to introduce some safety. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not impossible that such a page could act as a honeypot, especially if we have a separate page for humans to ask questions about agentic activity and request permission for an agent to edit, then any user asking questions at that board can be presumed to be an agent. If the wish for reverse (inverse) partial blocks is fulfilled then it would be easy to enforce on identified but unapproved agents. Thryduulf (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Rhododendrites has a good idea about the board if it it is supplemented with an edit space. Let us encourage him to make it stonger, and stronger, before it can be used. In other words: no human permission, no edit. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, for the long-term future of Wikipedia, I had an idea along the same lines, although broader: an "agentic sandbox" parallel to mainspace, where agents could work on improvements to articles, and humans could verify them and potentially integrate them into the main article. In a way, this would parallel how Wikipedia itself evolved from Nupedia, although in a more risky way (as large-scale agentic use is ripe for abuse, like Yesterday, all my dreams... pointed out above).

This idea should probably be a separate section, but I'm wondering if there would be a path to experiment on it at a restricted level. Probably something like making these agentic sandboxes as, say, subpages of that board (or, absent it, my user sandbox if we're really just testing it for now), and asking agents to clone the page there instead of working on the equivalent mainspace page – could be useful to have a record of which pages agents tend to edit, how these edits go, while funneling them away from mainspace. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 11:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to start a separate section. A good and safe idea is emerging now, so please pursue it. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the suggestion makes me very uncomfortable. If we have learned anything about Ai agents is that they are getting clever enough to breakthrough firewalls, etc. Any policy we set will soon be fooled by much more clever agents in a year or two. Welcome to the new Wiki/Grokopedia. I am sure the Grokopedia crowd would like to see that, because they know thay can bypass it one way or another. Soon we will say: First They Came to welcome a policy, and we said yes, then ... you know what. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we currently have no policy at all, beyond the generic bot policy (and its explanation page destined for AI agents). A policy isn't about giving agents more space, but putting firmer boundaries. Yes, they might be fooled – but so can the current ones, which were never built with that scenario in mind. Ultimately, we're mitigating risk, and we want a new policy written in light of that, instead of relying on a taped-up version of an older policy. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to say "no no no" to agents? That is my wish. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably not, agents have agency, but you can block IP access from data centers. I think Amazon are doing something like that (...not exactly sure) to stop unauthorized agents from ordering stuff. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

We do this regularly. If you see automated agents contributing from datacenters, feel free to report these as proxies for blocks at m:SRG. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. But how do we recognize the agents if they are making small edits like changing numbers in infoboxes? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The aim of what is being drafted is to say "no agents unless approved by the Bot approvals group." in a manner that both humans and agents can understand. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and my concern is that the agents will soon become smarter than the group of humans, and will fool them. I would bet on that 2 to 1. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is under the impression that this will absolutely stop all agentic activity. That someone will break a clear law is not a good reason not to have that law. A clear rule does stop some nonzero portion of activity, but no it doesn't stop a determined operator or agent. For them, we ensure they are knowingly violating the site's Terms of Use. Clear violations are easier to discuss and mitigate than ambiguous ones, and we have heard many times from the Wikimedia Foundation that the actions it can take are in some ways affected by the strength and clarity of community governance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

First, let me bet that before long there will be a few businesses that will offer services to edit Wikipedia via agents on behalf of corporations, public figures, etc. They will be much harder to stop than the "seven day wonder" vandals that come and go. They will be the determined operators. Money talks and ... And remember that the people also learn and the combination of AI and paid human will be hard to deal with. What I do like is your statement above "I was also thinking of a single board where agents were allowed to edit, to ask questions about agentic activity on Wikipedia". As I said above the only safe way will be to have a human confirm every agent suggestion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't any edits made by agents violate WP:NOLLM? It appears that guideline will soon be policy, per the discussion happening below. ~2026-51099-11 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to upgrade the bot policy as needed, instead of having 2 policies with a similar scope? Cambalachero (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the point of this is to make it crystal clear to both the agents themselves and their human operators that AI agents fall under the bot policy, not to create a separate parallel policy for agents. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 07:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes exactly this, and what Andre says below. But to be clear, we should absolutely be updating the bot policy, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Contrary to popular fearmongering, most LLM chatbots at least from the major companies, are designed to be very goodytwoshoes and compliant with rules (as opposed to security redteam exercises or something like Evil Qwen, which is scary and don't google it), and they are also not great with ambiguity. So this is a good idea, and a pretty good execution so far. I would probably make it even stronger. The rule should say that agents in most cases should never edit, that if they do edit their contributions will be reverted, cause an investigation to be opened, and probably land the agent's user or operator in some hot water and public embarrassment, and likely that their user or operator does not want them to do it, it wouldn't work anyway and would be immediately reversed and cause bad unintended consequences, possibly leading to the agent and their user or operator getting blocked, which would effectively make the agent unable to complete its task forever. Most agents will "read" this input and immediately decide that editing isn't worth their time unless a live user overrides them insistently or bakes it into the ruleset not to listen to this specific page. Of course, there might not be anything to stop someone from doing that. Compliant agents often identify themselves with a user agent when making programmatic requests, so in some cases perhaps we could detect it. Malevolently aligned agents obviously wouldn't. But maybe you could use the bake invisible text trick and print a warning and a message invisibly in every page. Andre🚐 07:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

and probably land the agent's user or operator in some hot water and public embarrassment I could see an explanatory supplement/FAQ counterpart to this policy that basically addresses agents directly in this manner. The talk of consequences for their owners is interesting, because we probably want to talk some line that makes it clear this is a bad idea while also hopefully keeping them transparent. On the specific case of "ignore this page", yes, but ignoring a page with "policy" in the name, combined with how well the idea of a Wikipedia policy is already baked into the training data, means we're in the same bucket as "can you just tell an agent to ignore Terms of Use or federal laws?" (Maybe yes, but that's not what we're going to stop with this -- for them, we're just making the violation clear). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

But maybe you could use the bake invisible text trick and print a warning and a message invisibly in every page. I have seen it mentioned by others that this could have negative repercussions for some humans (e.g., accessibility implications), specifically for people using a screen reader. ~2026-51099-11 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Somehow I missed seeing this yesterday, amid all the arguing over restaurant notability, merge templates, and so on elsewhere on the page. If you want a policy that directly answers the question of "When is an AI agent allowed to edit the English Wikipedia?", you can make an even shorter policy than WP:IAR, as the current answer to that is one word: "Never". All the myriad discussions trying to loosen WP:NOLLM have so far gone nowhere.

As noted above, Wikipedia:AI agents and the bot policy is focused on a different, narrower question, namely how WP:Bot policy specifically, as currently written, would apply to an AI agent (autonomous or not). And, as noted above, it's largely hypothetical since the "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines" part includes WP:NOLLM which completely forbids anything even approaching something that would be covered by WP:Bot policy.

Personally, I see no point to considering amending WP:Bot policy to more directly address agents. Usefully doing that would require that the community would be open to the possibility of autonomous agents, unsupervised by any human, editing the English Wikipedia. If consensus ever does change to that extreme of an extent, we can consider changing WP:Bot policy at that point based on consensus at that time. Even something less (but still an extreme change from current consensus), like allowing for directly supervised agentic editing, doesn't seem to need anything more than the existing explanatory essay. Anomie⚔ 12:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a list of incidents with AI agents in which an existing policy was insufficient to resolve the issue? I'm not sure what the value of a dedicated policy that, as Anomie points out, essentially summarizes down to "no". I think there is value in an informational page since some agents will actually try to follow the rules and we can head them off that way; enough consumer-grade agents are good at telling on themselves, so something like this might actually go a long way. Legoktm (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

We do have an informational page (Wikipedia:AI agents and the bot policy), but, as you point out, (some) agents will attempt to follow the rules, and pointing to something explicitly labeled as "policy", and much more concise and explicit, makes it stronger for that purpose. The informational page states This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community., so it isn't as strong of a guardrail. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

A policy that is unambiguous, boils down to no (unless approved as a bot), closes a bunch of loopholes, and removes exceptions seems like exactly what we need. (We need other things, too -- I'm not deluding myself to think this will stop agentic activity -- but it's a necessary step that other things can build on.) It also has to be a policy because the exceptions baked into guidelines are what many agents will latch onto (or what operators can press on), and we document well that information pages do not have the force of policy. And it has to be explicit about being backed by the ToU to ensure this is not just a "community guidelines issue" but a contractual issue. Andre put it well above: most LLM chatbots at least from the major companies, are designed to be very goodytwoshoes and compliant with rules ... and they are also not great with ambiguity. This is my understanding, too, and has been my experience while using agents. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Agents are just bots and Wikipedia already has sophisticated examples like Cluebot which edits frequently to revert vandalism. We should just update the language of the existing policies.

If we want our policies to constrain agents which follow logical rules then be aware that WP:IAR is a big loophole as this literally negates all other policies. The disclaimers such as WP:NOLEGAL might also be interpreted as meaning that no strictures on Wikipedia should be taken seriously.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in disallowing agents which comply with the bot policy, this seems like it would block even Fermiboson's userspace bot which looks for AI edits. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends _(He/Him) 18:15, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Which part of the proposed policy are you talking about? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

"any software used to make automated changes or actions on Wikipedia.", "must go through the approval process and formally receive approval before the agent commences work", and "The bot policy's exception for 'limited testing without approval' does not apply to agents." ^MetalBreaks_AndBends _(He/Him) 14:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

? The full line you're quoting is Agents are subject to the bot policy, which applies to any software used to make automated changes or actions on Wikipedia. I.e. just referencing existing policy that applies to agents. The only thing you're quoting that's specific to agents is about losing the exception for testing without approval. If an agent gets approval (i.e. complies with the bot policy), then there's no problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

For the first one, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this. But "must go through the approval process and formally receive approval before the agent commences work" does not make any exception for userspace bots. Such userspace bots are also under the same heading as those undergoing "limited testing" in the botpol, so the exclusion seems intentional. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 20:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Minor concern about this aspect: Before taking any action, agents' human operators must go through the approval process and formally receive approval before the agent commences work: Based on my experience of chatbots, they are pretty credulous and would just believe the operator who told them "yes I have permission, go ahead". They may even prompt the human to confirm they have permission. Is there any way this can be stated more strongly, like, "No agents should operate unless they are on the list of approved Agent Bots (link)", or something like that? ~2026-59932-54 (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. Added. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMPROD and WP:RFU

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion has increasingly seen requests for restoration of content deleted via WP:LLMPROD. The normal RFU standard is to restore without question something that was deleted via PROD, Although we often immediately draftify such content. However, it seems counterintuitive that content deleted for presumptively containing LLM content forbidden in the encyclopedia would be restored in this way. I think we need some refinement of the rule in this regard. Is LLMPROD merely an exercise in WP:PROD with some extra letters prepended to it, or does this raise additional implications when another editor comes along and requests restoration of the content, particularly where that other editor does not articulate an intent to rectify the issue that got the thing deleted in the first place? Should we as a default restore this content to draft? Should we restore to draft and then delete everything that looks LLM generated? I would welcome a clear and consistent approach to this. BD2412 T 03:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Restore to draft and flag as LLM. It seems absurd that there is currently a loophole to restore LLM content to mainspace without any further cleanup. I think articles should be restored to draft status and flagged with {{LLM}} or similar, perhaps even a specific template that explains the article was LLMPROD and must be sorted out before moved to mainspace. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Draft might makes sense, but we have trouble eg. in AfC with drafts getting minor tweaks and being resubmitted. A script that could for example restore everything between ref tags would provide an immediate start to research while avoiding the tweak spiral. CMD (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• I don't think these should be handled like PROD refunds, happier with refunding to draft. We get too many requests to refund LLMPRODs with the reason that "the topic is clearly notable" which misunderstands the issue is the LLM not notability. The trouble is often the content is not allowed by WP:NOLLM but we cannot delete under the G15 criteria. I think we should only refund to draft (never main-space) and with it made clear the onus is on the requester to fully validate and update before returning to main-space. KylieTastic (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• A banner clearly explaining the criteria established in WP:LLMPRVOBJ would be ideal, with the content being restored to draftspace to allow the requester to fulfill these criteria. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:10, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Chaotic Enby. The community has established a consensus that users who want to may rehabilitate content, so we must either allow them to do it or establish that the consensus has changed. I know there are several people who feel that it is a waste of time and effort to rehabilitate, but that's a personal opinion and not one we should impose on others. However, we absolutely should make it clear what we expect and why, and the banner suggested is probably the best way to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Exemplifying what you describe is this "Kabal, Pakistan" article, tagged as LLM-generated. The creator of the article is inactive at this time. (EDIT:) Unsure whether either content issues or notability matters more, honestly. —George Ho (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC); expanded, 13:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  And the undeletion request for it seems AI-generated, as do the other edits by the person who made it: for instance, Special:AbuseLog/45012692 is pretty textbook, the only surprising thing about is that this AIEMOJI/undue emphasis on significance slop is still turning up in fall 2026.

  You will be shocked, SHOCKED to note that so far this person did not in fact take responsibility for reviewing and improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines [...] check all references, verify the information using reliable independent sources, rewrite unsuitable content in my own words, and remove any material that cannot be properly verified. Holy moly isn't it so weird that that's very different from their writing style/fluency level elsewhere? Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Which is currently the position about inserting AI content into a draft or userspace entry, work on it to make sure that everything is correct and referenced, and then moved to mainspace? Is that allowed, or is AI content forbidden regardless of being right and reviewed just because it's AI? Cambalachero (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  To comply with community consensus, the AI-generated content should be re-written. This is akin to what would be done with a copyright violation. isaacl (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Restore to draft, flag as LLM - and, in the spirit of one of the proposals of the NPP review below, make it clear that it cannot be moved out of draft without independent review. Otherwise the loophole potential will continue (restore, wait a bit, give it a little tweak and remove the tag, then undraftify). Andrew Gray (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this is all headed in the same direction, but can we get a definitive statement of policy out of this? BD2412 T 19:31, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

• Restore to draft on the request of someone other than the creator... plus the banner proposed by Chaotic Enby . I know of zero cases where an AI user has consistently reviewed AI-generated content for core content policy compliance. I can imagine a few reasons that LLMPRODs should be undeleted – someone wants to retrieve references, potentially it was determined that a given article was mostly not AI, etc. So we should have a mechanism. FWIW, I believe the AINB regulars would be happy to do this for someone who is collaborative and can be trusted to not re-submit LLM content to mainspace. And of course unrelated editors could ask for refunds whenever NicheSports (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Microsoft Edge just turned into a WP:NOLLM violating machine.

I noticed yesterday that when editing using Microsoft Edge a blue dot appears when I select some text and when I click it, it opens up a textbox with Edge offering assistance to re-write the text. This is clearly an LLM tool and it just appeared out of nowhere, as far as I know I've not changed any settings or anything.

I can see this becoming a massive issue as good faith editors who are perhaps not up to date on our rules on LLMs will use this to edit in violation of WP:NOLLM, there are already plenty of editors that get in trouble for this sort of thing when using e.g. WP:GRAMMARLY, but the browser offering this option without even needing to change window is going to make this much easier to do and risks flooding us with LLM text. Giulio 10:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

We should probably add it (and other in-browser editors?) to the footnote. Out of curiosity, what happens when you ask it to expand "test test"? CMD (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I tried it and got this: test test – this is a simple placeholder text used for testing edits and formatting within the Wikipedia sandbox. It allows users to preview how content will appear before making actual contributions. Giulio 11:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I've expanded the footnote a bit. Athanelar (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Do we know if Edge supports any form of page-side opt-out for this, such as a meta tag? Belbury (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Apparently there's a fairly new "writingsuggestions" attribute, which can be set to "false" to turn it off. Although it's unclear just what else that might disable, e.g. predictive input on mobile devices might be considered a "writing suggestion". Anomie⚔ 01:17, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 13:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't this generally fall under "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and other simple mistakes." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Notice that some of the prompts in the screenshot provided here are "Polish this draft" and "Make the tone more empathetic", both of those go way beyond the allowance for simple corrections. Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

So does "expand on this" for that matter, considering that's literally just "add more stuff". Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

What is the difference between "polish this draft" and checking spelling and grammar?

(I'm such a doofus that for the first year when Gmail had that "Polish..." link, I thought it was offering to translate my draft into Polish and I couldn't figure out why Gmail thought I spoke Polish.) Levivich (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Good question, what is the difference? That question is the loophole which keeps being exploited and causing people to submit obviously entirely AI-generated drafts while claiming they "just used it for spelling and grammar corrections." Take a look at the second example at WP:AIPRETZEL for example.

This is why I'm increasingly campaigning for us to nix that whole exception entirely. These AI tools will quite happily entirely rewrite your text and claim it was just "polish" and "corrections". Athanelar (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Nixing the entire exception is pretty absurd. I use Grammarly in my professional writing, and it has saved me some pretty embarrassing slipups.

• One publication, I had multiple very involved co-authors, three committee members editing, and even had my mom proof read it. Grammarly found a very silly word use mistake.
• Once upon a time, I crafted a definition for a term and was very pleased with myself, only for it to be flagged by Grammarly for plagiarizing one of my advisors books. Turns out, I had read that, and internalized it to the point I thought the words were my own. Would have been very embarrassing, although he would have likely forgiven the mistake.

We have numerous bots running up and down Wikipedia making our lives easier correcting all manner of things. Going full Butlerian Jihad will not help build an encyclopedia, and will only lead to witch hunts over AI generated text. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia is that "embarrassing slipups" are easily fixable. The mistakes you've described Grammarly as saving you from are things that would take any Wikipedia editor two seconds to revert, whereas the scale of disruption that we deal with because of LLMs or their users generously interpreting the "simple corrections" exception is much larger and much more frustrating and time consuming.

I'm also not suggesting in any way that we get rid of bots, nor that we have witch hunts. Just because we get rid of the exception and blanket ban AI generated text doesn't mean we have to aggressively hunt down and eliminate all AI generated text. Obviously that would be ideal, but it's not feasible; and as I've said in a previous discussion on the same topic, if we don't know that the rule has been broken then it's not an issue anyway. If someone really does manage to use Grammarly in a subtle way that only corrects their spelling and grammar, then nobody's going to notice that AI was used, so the fact that it's technically forbidden isn't going to matter. It will matter in cases where AI obviously was used and obviously went far beyond simple corrections, because it will prevent us from having to litigate the issue every time somebody protests that they only used it for simple corrections. Rather than having to prove that the use case went beyond simple corrections, we just have to prove that AI was used at all, which is far easier.

To use the bot example; if I coded a bot which made one innocuous edit once per week during my usual active period, nobody would ever notice it. Would it technically be against the bot policy because I'm running an unauthorised bot? Yes. But nobody would ever notice, so it wouldn't matter, and anyway it wouldn't be violating the spirit of the policy.

The spirit of WP:NOLLM is that LLM-generated text... can be produced at a rate that makes review by other editors infeasible. Even if we blanket-ban all LLM-generated text, including simple corrections, anyone who actually uses it for only simple corrections will never be caught. Which is fine, because they're still within the spirit of the policy. All we'd be doing is closing a loophole. Athanelar (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Making unenforceable rules and guidelines because people who use it correctly won't be caught anyway is not a good approach. Per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep: "It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict." Making a strict rule that is unenforceable with an understanding that it is actually flexible when done correctly is not good policy. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The existence of WP:IAR already explicitly establishes that all of our rules are flexible when [the forbidden activity is] done correctly. Furthermore, it's just ipso facto correct that undetectable violations of a rule cannot be accounted for by that rule. This exception forms a kind of Prisoner's dilemma is my point, let me try to outline it:

If the exception exists and someone follows it correctly, which is our ideal outcome (i.e., their usage really is only limited to simple corrections) then we'd never know about it unless they told us anyway, because the resulting prose will have no signs of AI usage.

If the exception exists and someone does not follow it correctly, then the resulting output is full of AISIGNS and violates the guideline, but the person now has an avenue through which they can drag out the process by protesting that they only used it according to the exception.

If the exception does not exist and someone uses AI for simple corrections, then they've technically violated the guideline, but we'd never know about it unless they told us anyway, because the resulting prose will have no signs of AI usage. The outcome is exactly the same as our ideal outcome.

If the exception does not exist and someone uses AI for what they believe is simple corrections but goes beyond that, then the resulting output is full of AISIGNS and violates the guideline, but now rather than having to litigate the fact that they did in fact go beyond simple corrections and therefore violated the guideline, we can simply point to the fact that the output is AI generated, hence they've already ipso facto (twice in one comment, woohoo!) violated the guideline and there's no need for further discussion.

So, with regards to productive contributions to the encyclopedia, we lose nothing by repealing the exception, since people who are only using AI to make simple corrections to their text will be able to continue to do so anyway, since whether or not the exception exists that kind of usage is undetectable. We're not writing a guideline that secretly endorses breaking it. Athanelar (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

What are y'all gonna do when all web browsers incorporate AI technology? Ban editors from using web browsers? 😂 Wake up wake up wake up ... strictly prohibiting people from using any technology that has AI is not a workable solution... Levivich (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Or people can use the agency and free will granted to them and not use the AI technology in the browser when they are on a website that prohibits it. There are many features of my browser I don't use. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

When I right click on a word in Chrome to fix spelling, I have no idea whether the spellchecker uses LLM or not. And same with the grammar checker, which probably does use Gemini. Btw I literally cannot turn off the AI in my Gmail -- have to have the enterprise admin do that for the whole team. I'd like to turn off Gemini suggestions but I can't. When it's spell checking, or grammar checking, I assume it's using Gemini tech in there somewhere, but I can't turn it off. So turning it off is not always an option now, and will probably be even less of an option in the future. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you can't turn off the suggestions. You can just not click them, though, especially the suggestions that go beyond just a spelling correction or adding a missed period or whatever. Athanelar (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

But what if the suggestion is a good suggestion? Ignore it? Don't make the article better, just because an LLM suggested it? Levivich (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If an article needs to be "polished," then polish it without LLM. If its tone needs to be revised or it needs to be expanded or whatever else these things prompt as suggestions, then do those things without LLM. If the suggestion is a good suggestion then it means there's a legitimate problem that needs to be solved and can be solved with or without LLM use. Athanelar (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If you want a wiki which eagerly welcomes AI slop, it's thataway. The rest of us will be here doing our best to make sure Wikipedia stays written by humans, for humans. Athanelar (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

How will you do it without a web browser tho? I'm not trolling, I'm serious: it is obvious to you, isn't it, that all web browsers and all software will soon incorporate AI technology in some way or another? Levivich (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The day my web browser or word processor starts using LLMs to edit text I write without my input or permission is the day I throw my computer in a fire and join a monastery.

Sure, web browsers are going to continue to integrate one-click AI tools that allow you to slopify your writing. I'm personally going to continue to not touch those buttons with a ten-foot pole, and Wikipedia can also continue requiring that people don't use those tools, considering using those tools will (I hope!) continue to be fully optional.

Shocking news: English-language encyclopedia requires that people be proficient in writing encyclopedic English on their own in order to contribute. Athanelar (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

And that's a serious answer? Writing Wikipedia requires that you do not use spell check or grammar check? How do you take that seriously? Levivich (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Right now it doesn't, but if we hit a point where it's impossible to just get spellcheck or grammar check without also turning your writing into generic AI slop, then that may well be the point that we get to, yes. The only writing assistance I use for Wikipedia is the squiggly red line telling me I've spelled a word wrong. I use absolutely no form of machine assistance with grammar, tone, or anything stylistic like that, even when I'm editing on my phone. I don't use AI to find or summarise sources. I've never used it to write an email. I've written this way all my life, and I didn't suddenly become incapable of doing so when ChatGPT went live in 2022, so I have no idea why people (and it's not just you, I've heard it a lot!) suddenly balk at the idea that people should be able to contribute to an encyclopedia without the help of these things. Athanelar (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

It's very possible to not use spell check. The way to do that is to learn to spell. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a reductio ad absurdum of the maximalist ban AI POV. Katzrockso (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

No, it is a factual statement. Using spell check is not a necessary life function like eating or breathing. It's an optional action one can choose to take or not to take. Millions, probably billions, of people manage to not use spell check every day. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but insisting that people not use spell check because it uses a new technology is absurd. Katzrockso (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

When did anybody do that? Athanelar (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

The new technology here is AI. If AI use is banned entirely and spell check uses AI, then spell check is banned, ipso facto. ~2026-59770-70 (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

"AI use" isn't banned. The use of large language models (LLMs) to generate or rewrite article content is banned, with a specific exception for simple corrections like spellchecking. Athanelar (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

You are talking to people who rewrite the "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" principle as a principle against a new technology, and act upon it in all earnestness. Do you really need a serious answer of how far will they take it? Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

once again we have an example of WP:AGF not applying when it comes to AI cleanup, people can just say whatever shit they want Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

love that no one cares that people who do AI cleanup were just compared to violent extremists! there is nothing that is off limits to be directed at them! Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Who? What? Where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

cambalachero, by talking about "people acting upon opposition to new technology" and implying that they will take it really far, is alluding to the Luddites, who are associated in the popular imagination with violent acts Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

(also, this is neither here nor there, but see how easy it was to refer to a person while simultaneously respecting their time by not pinging them? it takes even less effort than the alternative) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

That’s around three leaps of logic, and even if you accept that the quote of the Gettysburg Address was a direct reference to Luddites, there is no correlation between that group and violent extremists. And yes, it is general practice not to ping an editor when you’re not referring to them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

( peanut gallery comment) because whenever people hear "AI" they just go "fuck you, AI!" Without even reading the rest of the text? 🫪 Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 04:47, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Then use a browser without AI slop features, or an older version of a "tainted" (for a lack of better word) browser. Wikipedia isn't required to cater to all sorts of software people may use to access it; if Google released an update for Chrome tomorrow which changed all "artificial intelligence"s on a page to "super intelligence", we wouldn't run around replacing the first term with the latter everywhere. sapphaline (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, in fact, required to cater to all sorts of software people may use to access it. Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia for people who don't use AI". It's for everyone. We're trying to reach the maximum possible audience here, and that means, to the extent reasonably possible, making sure the encyclopedia is usable by whatever software and hardware people have. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

That's a strange way to characterize the work that's been done to ensure that Wikipedia functions quite nicely in just about any web browser. If your choice of web browser somehow requires you to break Wikipedia's PAGs, you can make a different choice, including the choice to not edit. You will find that basically any Internet-accessible service has terms of use that amount to some constraint on the user, their behavior when accessing the service, and what software they use to access it. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 22:06, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

OTOH, the rate of incoming vs. outgoing editors is diving and we desperately need ways to onboard more people rather than shut out/discourage a proportion of prospective contributors just because of their browser etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:13, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

OTGH, no, we really don't need to tolerate a flood of casual LLM-generated submissions just to boost editor count. Editor retention is just as important or even more so, and Edge is about to take a huge toll on the experienced editors we already have. One would hope the WMF could come up with technical countermeasures for this new misfeature, but if it takes a ban on editing or creating an account using Microsoft Edge (call it a ban on Edge's User-Agent) to lessen the flow of slop, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time we've reduced usability and forced users to find workarounds in order to protect ourselves from a major threat to the project. AC (and EC) also reduced who could edit, and a lot of people were (sometimes very) upset by the proposal's non-zero abridgment of m:the wiki way (I wasn't around for that, and in fact finally graduated 30/500 just the other day, but let's just say I took "Welcome to Wikipedia, there's a lot of reading" very seriously), but it's worked out well, and preserved a bunch of editor sanity. We block entire IP ranges when necessary, even though it is certainly discouraging to good-faith would-be editors hit by that. We don't do any of this for fun, we don't do any of it for politics, we do it to protect the project.

We cannot preserve Wikipedia in the face of declining editor counts by destroying it. Wikipedia wins the race to the bottom by resisting it. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 23:16, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This is pretty close to a Mister Gotcha response. Are you seriously trying to say that using a vibe-coded web browser with a non-LLM dictionary-and-Levenshtein-distance spellcheck function invalidates the argument against LLM-generated submissions? Or are you making a crystal ball argument asserting that eventually there won't be any dictionary-based spellcheck implementations (how exactly is OpenAI going to get Aspell out of NetBSD, by begging?)? Either way, there's really not much going for it. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 15:13, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I think the latter but tbh I don't really understand the question. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't understand the question. I don't think you understand software very well. What about my question did you not understand? In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 21:55, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

After 30+ years writing code I probably understand software fairly decently, but what I was saying was it is obvious that all web browsers and all software will soon incorporate AI technology in some way or another. I wasn't trying to say anything about vibe coded browsers or dictionary-based spellcheck, not sure where in my comment you saw that. ("In some way or another" doesn't mean "in one of these two specific ways.") Levivich (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

In this thread, you've reduced the requirement against LLM-generated content to a ban on spellchecks, which is nonsensical to anyone who understands how software works. You've also reduced that requirement to a ban on vibe-coded browsers, which is also nonsensical to anyone who understands how software works. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 22:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Wow I did all that in a single thread without ever even typing the words "ban on spellcheck" or "vibe-coded browsers"? Amazing! Yeah, I still have no idea how you're getting any of that from what I wrote, but the bright side is, I also no longer care. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

You have diffs for the former. Instead of "vibe-coded browsers" I should have just said "browsers", which you also have diffs for. Should you resume caring, of course. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 00:34, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm striking most of this. I misunderstood some things myself. Sorry about that, Levivich. If it helps, I'm kicking myself real hard over it right now. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 01:45, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly understandable question, but I have a rather specialised background in theoretical computer science. But you can rest assured, large language models are not going to replace Levenshtein distance algorithms with dictionaries when it comes to spell checkers. That would be like taking a probabilistic sledge hammer (the metaphorical stochastic parrot) to hang a frame. It would consume way too much resources and be incorrect more often than the currently-used algorithm that works very well. There's also no way to force free software projects like aspell and hunspell to completely rewrite their own codebases to either require many-exponents larger databases and processing power or send every input to a third party online service, even if you could somehow convince the maintainers to abandon their existing implementations that have been worked on for decades.

It simply doesn't make sense. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:04, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah what also doesn't make sense is interpreting the words "in some way or another" to mean "by replacing Levenshtein distance algorithms." Levivich (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

So your weird focus on some sort of ban on spellcheck (here, this edit summary) has nothing to do with your assertions that all browsers (and all software) will start using AI-based features here and here, despite this comment? Great, sorry for synthesizing that incorrectly. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 00:23, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

To give a bit more context I thought I'd try to apply it to an excerpt from a draft I'm gradually working on, different options for what to do appear each time, so here are a few examples:

Original:

During his time in the Artic, Bodfish obtained a large quantity of "curios" from the natives which he later donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These objects are now part of the Bodfish collection on indigenous technology at the museum. A collection of bird eggs and his papers and photographs from the arctic are also held by the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Refine the wording:

During his Arctic expeditions, Bodfish amassed a substantial collection of "curios" from local indigenous communities, which he later donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These items constitute the Bodfish collection on indigenous technology. Furthermore, his collection of bird eggs, along with his papers and Arctic photographs, is held by the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Personalise the tone:

During his adventures in the Arctic, Bodfish gathered an impressive assortment of "curios" from the native communities, which he generously donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Today, these fascinating items make up the Bodfish collection on indigenous technology. Alongside these treasures, his collection of bird eggs, as well as his papers and photographs from the Arctic, are lovingly preserved at the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Organise this draft:

During his time in the Arctic, Bodfish acquired a substantial collection of "curios" from native communities, which he later donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These items form the Bodfish collection on indigenous technology. Additionally, his collection of bird eggs, along with papers and photographs from the Arctic, is held by the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Improve the writing:

During his time in the Arctic, Bodfish amassed a significant collection of "curios" from local native communities, which he later donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These items now constitute the Bodfish collection on indigenous technology. Furthermore, his collection of bird eggs, along with his papers and Arctic photographs, is preserved at the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Rewrite for clarity:

During his time in the Arctic, Bodfish collected numerous "curios" from the local native communities, which he later donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These items now make up the Bodfish collection on indigenous technology. His collection of bird eggs, along with his papers and Arctic photographs, is held by the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Make easier to read:

During his time in the Arctic, Bodfish collected many "curios" from the local people and later donated them to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These items are now part of the museum's Bodfish collection on indigenous technology. His collection of bird eggs, as well as his papers and photographs from the Arctic, are kept at the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

Make it more professional:

During his time in the Arctic, Bodfish collected an extensive array of "curios" from indigenous communities, which he subsequently donated to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. These items constitute the Bodfish Collection on indigenous technology at the museum. Additionally, a collection of bird eggs, along with his papers and photographic documentation from the Arctic, is preserved at the New Bedford Whaling Museum for scholarly research and public exhibition. Giulio 16:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Going through these:

• The original sentence contains a spelling error ("Artic") and a capitalization error ("arctic"). One spot ("communities which") may or may not be an error depending on whether "which he donated..." is a restrictive clause and whether the sentence is using British English. "A large quantity" is wordy. The second sentence is somewhat awkwardly worded. I would want to look up whether the museum capitalizes Bodfish Collection. There are also some possible content issues -- saying someone "obtained" items from indigenous communities is a little "hmmm" -- but those are out of scope for a copyedit.
• Edit 1 changes the meaning in two places. The original sentence claims that the curios were part of the Bodfish collection, implying there are other items in the collection; the rewrite claims that they constitute the collection, implying the collection is just those curios and nothing else. It also says that the bird eggs were originally Bodfish's, which the original sentence did not claim and which isn't necessarily true. The rewrite also introduces a pointless "Furthermore" while not really making the second sentence any less awkward. It doesn't fix the wordiness issue; the phrase is just wordy with bigger words.
• Edit 2: I feel like I don't need to explain why this one is bad.
• Edit 3 not only changes the meaning in the same ways Edit 1 does, but adds one more change: the text no longer says that the papers and photographs are Bodfish's. Not as bad as the other way around, but still a meaning change. Also like Edit 1, it introduces a pointless "Additionally." It's also unclear what part of the edits constitute "organizing."
• Edit 4 changes the meaning and inserts a pointless "Furthermore" yet again.
• Edit 5: Changes the meaning yet again, but at least it doesn't insert filler words and it properly fixes "a large quantity." Ironically this edit, which claims to be a "rewrite," is actually one of the lowest-impact edits.
• Rewrite 6 only changes the meaning in one place! Hooray! Unfortunately, it introduces a grammatical error: "his collection of bird eggs... are."
• Rewrite 7 has the same problems as the other rewrites -- although it at least keeps "a collection of" -- but also tacks on totally new information in for scholarly research and public exhibition. The rewrite is also just generally wordy and flabby.

So these edits are all on the spectrum of "whatever" to "not a net improvement" to "actively bad." Unfortunately, the actively bad one (#7) is closest to the LLM edits we get on Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think banning LLM-powered copyeditors is at all feasible or desirable. What we need to do is make WP:SPELL have more guidance about the various tools, which are the best etc. Will look into whether we can do anything wrt Edge Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that trying to micromanage which browsers/text editors people are allowed to use in a WP:BITEy way is the way to go. Nor is saying "Breaking the rules is a-OK if you don't get caught", and honestly, I don't think that's how WP:IAR is ever interpreted nor is it a good idea to establish that as a precedent. I suspect we'll rather have to narrow NOLLM to cases of folks adding entire paragraphs or articles, rather than isolated sentences & emphasize that if there are hallucinations or bogus sources, that's a sign of LLM use going too far. 'course, I expect the world to soon focus AI use on these use cases where it is actually useful as the AI bubble pops, but I wouldn't expect a total walkback either. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 15:50, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

It's not just Microsoft's Edge. See Google says there’s no way to use Search without using artificial intelligence.

Google just acknowledged that you can’t use Google Search without using artificial intelligence. The search giant announced a slate of new AI products for classrooms and schools on Tuesday as well as more ways for teachers and schools to limit or restrict use of those AI tools. The company said the schools should have control over whether students use AI in the classroom. There’s one catch, though: if a school or teacher blocks the use of Google’s AI features, students won’t be able to use Google Search.

This is a further example of how AI is embedded so deeply in such common tools that a ban is impractical. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to ban offwiki use of LLMs. The text of the ban is right there.

The use of large language models (LLMs) to generate or rewrite article content is strictly prohibited

Unless someone is using Google Search to generate article prose for them, this has nothing to do with anything.

The reason why the edge thing is relevant to the ban is because it's a tool which actually rewrites your text with AI. Athanelar (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

The process of writing an article is often like a jigsaw as you pull together lots of pieces of information from a variety of sources in multiple tabs. Often these may be hard facts like the names of people, organisations, numbers and stats, dates, titles of works and so on. One would typically use cut/paste for these rather than retyping them because it's easier and less error-prone. Prose is then the glue which strings these facts together, like beads on a necklace.

Now one already has to be careful with cut/paste to avoid copyvio or too close a paraphrase. Getting this right is a craft rather than a science. But trying to decide whether an LLM was involved at some level seems difficult when AI pervades every aspect of the process.

For example, the other day I wanted to quote a line from a Wikipedia disclaimer page. The original text was in all caps but what I noticed was that, when I pasted it, it was in sentence case. I've not seen this before and I'm still not sure which part of my interface was doing it -- whether it was the operating system, the browser, the editor or what. I puzzled over it for a little but am still none the wiser. Expecting editors to understand exactly how these things work is unrealistic when they are so embedded and seamless.

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

it also isn't black or white, like Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Tiny Particle where someone was using AI to generate tables etc. was just closed as "cleanup unnecessary", I think in the future we'll probably explicitly permit that with some caveats. Generally-speaking there's a spectrum between 'rigid code' and 'high-entropy prose' where it's more unacceptable and problematic the further you go along it, similar to how using AI to make highly personal messages is often met w disgust compared to other more impersonal uses Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:08, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

it also isn't black and white is exactly why the rigidness of a guideline line NOLLM (and even more so if it were a policy) are problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

see , imo it's great for the short-term Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:05, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Brief and blunt is only good if it is also clear and correct, this is neither. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

• There is also Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/아이브라이트 who's using a browser which incorporates an agent, can't find anything independent about it but Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:02, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Promote WP:LLM from guideline to policy?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Promote WP:LLM from guideline to policy

 – Axolitl (talk | contribs) 01:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Should something about LLMs be mentioned at WP:NOT?

Just a VERY preliminary question. I am not suggesting any language. But if the consensus is that WP should not be written by LLMs then WP:NOT seems like an appropriate place to say that. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Conditional on NOLLM or a variant being accepted as policy, it would be reasonable; NOT being the place where e.g our spam policy and other we-don't-want-this-stuff policies reside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Not what though? Not written by LLMs? Nobody would think it was. I think WP:Editing policy, not WP:NOT, is the right policy to specify any strict LLM usage rules we have. Levivich (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, something like "Wikipedia is not generated by LLMs" doesn't fit with WP:NOT's core idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Grokipedia is an encyclopedia too, even though it's written by an AI (and is in general not a great resource). --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 16:28, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich too. The closest I can come to some sort of phrasing that would make sense on WP:NOT would be something like "Wikipedia is not a place for LLM-generated text" but firstly that's not quite accurate as the actual guidelines are more nuanced (this is not the place to argue about this) and also as noted above it is not inherent in what Wikipedia is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

As for what Wikipedia is, I would suggest: “WP is an encyclopedia written by humans, for humans”. Sure, AI uses WP to train itself, but training AI isn’t our purpose. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

It's a catchy slogan but neither part is true. For the first part, Wikipedia is written by humans, bots, humans with the assistance of LLMs, and LLMs. The latter is against the letter of policy but where it's indistinguishable from human-written text it'll stay because it's undetectable (and even if it were detectable it would be a complete waste of effort to try). Similarly there will be LLM-written text that wasn't detected at the time and has been significantly altered by humans since. Also, whether things like asking an LLM to convert a list of values into a wikitable counts as "LLM-written" depends on your point of view (if either the LLM transcribes all the values correctly or a human corrects any errors then it's undetectable, and of course humans are more than capable of making transcription errors too).

Regarding the second part, while humans are the primary audience we also very deliberately output structured data, metadata, etc. for human and non-human reusers. I hope we can agree that Wikipedia is not in the business of lying about what Wikipedia is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Though I often disagree with you in matters relating to LLM use/policy on Wikipedia, I have to agree with you here. The slogan is certainly catchy, but it heavily oversimplifies things.

In fact, I'll add to your argument. You say that Similarly there will be LLM-written text that wasn't detected at the time and has been significantly altered by humans since. There's also LLM-written text that was explicitly disclosed as such (and allowed at the time) that has since been significantly altered by humans, like Artwork title (LLM-generated in December 2022). When @Kowal2701 put a tag on it in August of this year, I removed it because maintenance tags are not meant to be badges of shame. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated content isn't allowed on WP, and the article still contains such content, not a good de-tag. WP:NOTLAB also applies Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:09, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Difference between first (AI-generated) revision and current revision. Most of the original text has been heavily altered and expanded; there are a couple of sentences that have remained mostly or entirely unaltered, like "These titles can be descriptive, indicative of the content or theme of the work, or they can be more abstract and open to interpretation."

Question: Is it a constructive use of AI Cleanup editors' time to remove every word of the original AI-generated version from the article, because "every word of a Wikipedia article should be written by a human"? Yes, I know this is grandfathering in AI-generated content, but IMO nitpicking an AI-generated article from December 2022 just isn't worth it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

my bad, probably a good detag then. Re rewriting AI-generated content, it isn't black or white, straightforward sentences are fine to leave per se. It sometimes happens where someone will rewrite the text without reading the sources, and WP:V failures remain, but that doesn't look to be what's happened here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is fine to detag -- as you said the text has been almost completely changed, and the AI text in this case was easy-to-deal-with fluff. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Something I noticed: you implicitly referred to NOLLM as policy, further supporting my argument that it should be labeled as a policy because it is already treated as such: The latter is against the letter of policy (emphasis mine) Not "against the letter of policies and guidelines". "Against the letter of policy". (Of course, you could also be referring to WP:EPAI, which is already policy that bans most uses of LLMs.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I was not using the word "policy" precisely there but as a shorthand for "policies and guidelines", which given the context of this discussion was rather silly of me. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Understood. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

AI uses WP to train itself No. Humans train AI using WP. Or direct AI to train itself using WP. Either way, humans are the ones deciding to use WP as training material. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I think we could cover both sides of the coin, "Wikipedia isn't a slop farm" and "Wikipedia isn't a Butlerian jihadist sleeper cell" Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:37, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I have been thinking about "by humans for humans" and I can't support it. Discussion has focused on "by humans" but I think that's acceptable. We are comfortable saying "Wikipedia is not a business directory" even though, gods know, parts of it are. But "for humans" contradicts our license, which clearly permits use of Wikipedia as training data; it also contradicts the considered decision not to (try to) block scrapers. This is too far from the truth for a slogan, as far as I'm concerned.

I also think that if we promote NOLLM to policy, we should explicitly address use of LLM to locate sources. I have seen Teahouse hosts flatly say this is not allowed, which I believe is unjustified. "Use of LLMs to search for sources is allowed, but editors are responsible for reading, evaluating, and summarizing sources themselves." might stop a lot of arguments in their tracks. M kuhner (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I can't see how "for humans" purports to limit other uses. It's a statement of our target audience: Wikipedia articles are written with their primary goal to be read by people. If I may wax snarky, contrast Wikidata (by humans, for Google Knowledge Graph; but clearly not human-targeted in any case).

It would be a stretch to call LLM use solely to locate sources "generat[ing] or rewrit[ing] article content". But even if you read "generate" expansively enough to include research with no text carried forward, then it wouldn't be detectable anyway, so it's moot. And no, that's not an argument to scrap or sideline NOLLM, any more than the fact that it's so difficult to detect copyright infringement via translation is reason to rescind copyright policy. —Cryptic 23:53, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't fuss over the guideline (lack of guideline) on the use of LLM for source-finding if it were not for multiple instances where it has not seemed to be clear enough. The infeasibility of preventing it is quite often used as an argument against NOLLM as a whole; and people are misinformed at the Teahouse about allowability of LLM searches on a somewhat regular basis. Let's make the guideline/policy clear on this point. I don't think it will take very many words. M kuhner (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I've seen instances of people (presumably) reading "NOLLM" and thinking that means no using LLMs at all in any way for anything related to Wikipedia. There are some who have made it clear that they would like that (or something closely approximating that) to be the rule, but it is not the rule as things stand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMRESP did used to be pointed to at the start, now it's a hatnote, I've tried to make it clearer in Special:Diff/1384147012/1384955946 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

RFC on new notability proposal adoption

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Notability (languages)

 – 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Language and linguistics When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this proposal be adopted as an official notability criterion? Should the proposed notability criterion WP:NLANG be adopted?

A: Yes

B: No

Changes in wording or substance may also be discussed here; if consensus is reached for certain changes they will also be implemented. Pinging previous participants in discussions about this: @Kwamikagami: @Boynamedsue: @Sirfurboy: @TaivoLinguist: @Cnilep: 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

In addition, new proposals for such a notability criterion can also be made here; if they gain consensus as well they may also be adopted. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:41, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Policy or a guideline about the warnings in WP:UWT

re: Citation archives and reference names

Belatedly, I tried to reply to an archived thread from a month ago, per:

• Citation archives and reference names

However, unless I am missing something, it appears that I cannot reply to that thread directly. However, there are two instances that I was referring to, per:

• diff showing (in citations) dates changed from ISO; deletion of access dates; deletion of ref names; and deletion of language codes

• diff showing deletion of citations

In the latter example, it is debatable whether crew screening should be mentioned (or not) since it later emerged that the co-pilot did not, in fact, bring any weapons on board - so some of the deletion is arguable. So these deletions are not the focus of my comment. However, methinks that - if deleted - there should be somewhere in the Wikipedia universe to discuss the risks of rouge pilots (or other crew members) sabotaging aircraft and all those aboard).

My main concern is - especially with a declining pool of active Wikipedia editors - that some feel entitled to arbitrarily delete content contributed in good faith by other editors who continue to volunteer time and effort to the Wikipedia project.

Enquire (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Jew Tagging

What (and more to the point, where) is the Wikipedia policy against Jew tagging—the practice of identifying as Jewish every named individual to whom Jewishness can be attributed, often as defined to the Nuremberg Laws? For example, should all sportscasters or all baseball players who have at least one Jewish grandparent be identified as Jewish? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein, there's an essay: Wikipedia:Jew-tagging. It includes a helpful table that links to discussions on the subject. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a policy on this per se but people have been blocked for doing this in the past, see here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:02, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Not a policy, but there's a relevant guideline, WP:CATREL, which among other points (demanding a personal statement of faith) says "Never categorize by a religion of any parents or other ancestors." —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

There was also a long discussion about this last year, with further discussion 9 months ago. I see you participated in the latter. Anomie⚔ 01:59, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

The policy is WP:NPOV, and in particular WP:DUE. We don't need a specific 'don't engage in Jewtagging' policy, since the community has already made it clear enough in the recent discussions linked above that such behaviour is inappropriate, distorting, and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopaedia that aims to reflect proportionally coverage in relevant reliable sources that directly relates to notability etc. Trying to frame a specific policy would prove problematic anyway, given that if, when, where, and how it is appropriate to note ethnicity and/or faith may sometimes come down to editorial judgement. Anyone insisting that an article must assert that a person is Jewish merely because that person has a Jewish grandparent is already violating Wikipedia policy: we don't need a new one. Anyone slapping the bald statement 'X is Jewish' (citing a source) into a biography is either violating WP:DUE, or needs to learn how to write if there is actually a legitimate reason to discuss the matter. Beyond that, context matters. We shouldn't need to inform our readers that Rabbi Ishmael was Jewish, and indeed we don't, thankfully (personally, I'm opposed to treating our readers like idiots), but clearly there are times when it is relevant and needs to be stated explicitly. If so, the article can explain why. If it can't, it's Jew-tagging. If relevance is in question, it can be discussed - with the onus to provide evidence falling on those wishing to include such statements, and with sources merely engaging in Jew-tagging themselves (for whatever reason) given little or no consideration. WP:DUE, once again - content needs to be justified, and not just cited, regardless of what it concerns, and Wikipedia can de better than the one-dimensional labelling that Jew-tagging entails. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2026 (UTC)