Wikipedia:AITALKSIGNS

Canned assurance of quality, good faith, and adherence to policies and guidelines

Most people on Wikipedia want others to believe that they're here for the right reasons and are willing to follow the rules, and may insist that they make their contributions with such rules in mind. AI chatbots, however, have a strong tendency to communicate this in a specific way: invoking policies, guidelines, and standards as a broad, formal, and abstract whole, as in legalese, and often using "AI vocabulary" to do so.

Examples

I have a genuine interest in contributing to the knowledge and accuracy of information available on Wikipedia, particularly in the area of dogs. I have conducted extensive research and have insights that I believe could enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of the existing content on the "Dog" article.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I am committed to contributing in a responsible and constructive manner. My intention is to provide well-referenced and reliable information that aligns with Wikipedia's standards.

If granted permission, I would approach the editing process with the utmost care and respect for Wikipedia's community guidelines.

I assure you that my intentions are aligned with Wikipedia's principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. I strive to adhere to all content and editing guidelines, ensuring the information provided is accurate, well-sourced, and encyclopedic.

I can assure you that the article and our comments are the result of human effort and collaboration. Anon and I are committed to creating informative and balanced content that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. [...] Let's work together to ensure that our article contributes meaningfully to the climate change discourse.

---

Chloe and I are ready to provide any additional clarification or context that might be needed. The article is now more focused on the economic impacts and includes a range of viewpoints on technology and policy, with a clear human-centered narrative. We've also ensured that all sources are credible and properly cited. [...] Our ultimate goal is to create a valuable resource that aligns with Wikipedia's high standards and sparks important conversations about our planet's future.

Links to searches

• "I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's"
• "I fully respect Wikipedia's"

Canned offers to receive constructive criticism

Expressions of willingness to take constructive criticism for edits are very common in AI comments by users whose drafts were declined by reviewers, or in rare cases, themselves. The difference between this sign and similar reassurances by conscientious humans will generally become obvious after you actually provide that criticism.

Examples

I am open to any suggestions or feedback from experienced editors to ensure that the modifications I propose maintain the integrity of the article.

If there are specific areas that need further attention or modification, I am more than willing to make adjustments. I highly value the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any guidance you could provide to help my article meet the necessary standards for publication.

I am happy to address any further concerns or comply with any additional requirements to demonstrate my commitment to responsible editing.

If you or any editor have any specific sections that still feel promotional, unclear or non-neutral, I would really appreciate guidance so I can adjust them accordingly.

I understand the concern about AI-generated drafts flooding AfC, and I respect the need to maintain quality standards. If there are specific sections where the tone reads as machine-generated, I'm happy to rework those. I'd also welcome any feedback on sourcing gaps - I want this to meet Wikipedia's standards properly.

Could you point me to which parts raised the flag? That would help memake [sic] targeted improvements before resubmitting.

Links to searches

• "If there are specific concerns about" OR "If there are specific concerns regarding"
• "If there are any specific concerns about" OR "If there are any specific concerns regarding"
• "If there are specific areas that" OR "If there are any specific areas that" -"know if there are" -"and if there are"
• "If there are any specific sections that"

Canned calls to focus on content instead of conduct

In many cases, editors have responded to accusations of AI use by denying that they have used AI to write content (or that Wikipedia prohibits doing so) and calling for discussions to instead be focused solely on the improvement of affected articles. Such editors often ask accusers to point out which contributions have tone issues or other problems, perhaps as a form of constructive criticism that they can act on in order to ensure that their newly-added content meets Wikipedia's standards.

When told that the general pattern of their editing has been disruptive, they often dismiss the accusation as being merely speculative, unfounded, or having no basis in policy, and accuse their critics of acting in a manner that they believe is uncivil, hostile, dismissive, unprofessional, counterproductive, or an affront to Wikipedia's collaborative nature. Persistence from others is interpreted as aggression; if challenged sufficiently they may state their intent to withdraw from the discussion as it has become "emotionally charged". Since the editor did not write this comment themselves, they will often continue the discussion or return to it shortly afterwards.

AI will seldom confirm that it's being used without the prior consent of the user, so if the response is vague, sidesteps the question or considers it to be a personal attack, this may be a sign of AI use.

Examples

5. Next Steps: Instead of resorting to dismissive remarks, let's focus on improving the article together. I'm willing to conduct additional research to ensure every claim is backed by solid evidence. If you have specific concerns about certain statements, let's address them constructively, rather than resorting to unproductive accusations.

Let's keep the discussion focused on the content and ensure that we maintain a respectful and professional atmosphere moving forward.

Complaints about accusers acting on speculation

When a user is confronted for allegedly pasting content from a large language model, they will likely dismiss these concerns as unsubstantiated speculation based on tone or writing style rather than hard evidence of LLM use. Most if not all users who do so also tell those who confront them to just point out what needs to be improved and focus on that instead of calling them out.

Examples

Non-existent policies or guidelines

When AI chatbots try to cite Wikipedia's policies or guidelines by mentioning shortcuts, they have occasionally misattributed hallucinated policies or guidelines to specific pages, including to pages that were never intended to be cited in such a manner to begin with.

Examples

WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states:

"Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources."

In this case, the material you’re suggesting must be accompanied by a reliable English translation or reliable secondary sources for verification. Without that, it cannot meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards.

Per WP:LAW: "Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the countries in which it operates."

• WP:BLOCKPOLICY — blocks are preventative, not punitive.
• WP:BEFORE — admins should attempt communication before blocking.
• WP:AGF — assume good faith.
• WP:BITE — do not bite newcomers.
• WP:INVOLVED — avoid actions where involved.
• WP:UNBLOCK — blocks may be overturned when not aligned with policy.

Confusion over the reason for a declined draft

AI chatbots cannot read the decline notice left on the draft, and can only respond to whatever information regarding the declined draft that the user gives them. As a result, AI-generated questions regarding declined drafts will often express uncertainty or request clarification over the reason a draft was declined, even if the decline notice on the draft is very clear. They may even compose self-contradictory comments that simultaneously acknowledge the specific reason for the draft's decline, but go on to say that they are trying to understand whether that was really the reason, or whether it was declined for some completely unrelated reason.

The latest decline says the draft needs multiple published secondary sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and are independent. I understand the concern... I am trying to understand whether the problem is mainly that these sources are not strong enough for WP:BIO / WP:NARTIST, or whether the draft structure and tone are still the main issue.

How could the "draft structure and tone" still be the "main issue" when it has just been specifically acknowledged what the issue is?

I am requesting guidance on Draft:Alexis Marcou after repeated AfC declines... I am trying to understand whether the issue is mainly source quality, article tone, or both before making any further changes.

Note that the latest decline notice on that draft when this question was asked was for both notability and promotional tone; so the answer to this question is obviously 'both'.

Is the primary issue related to notability, sourcing, tone, conflict of interest, or article structure?

In particular, I would like to understand: Whether the issue relates to notability, sourcing, or tone If any specific sections need revision or removal

Canned request for source assessment

When confronted by a declined draft, or otherwise criticism of their work, it is common for LLM editors to make a stock request for an "experienced," "uninvolved," or "neutral" editor to provide a second opinion of their sources or their writing in general. This usually carries the (unintentional?) implication that the declining reviewer didn't do their job properly.

Could an experienced editor please advise which of these sources, if any, count as reliable, independent, significant coverage for a biography article?

Could an uninvolved editor advise which of the current references, if any, count as significant independent secondary coverage for notability purposes, and which should be treated only as supporting or weak sources?

Notice how these sound like almost exactly the same comment? These were written by two completely different people.

I would like clarification about the reliability and sufficiency of the sources I added. Could you please review my listed sources and let me know which ones qualify as reliable, independent coverage and which ones do not meet Wikipedia’s standards?

Links to searches

• "advise which of" "if any, count as" "coverage for"

Subject lines

Historically, some comments generated by AI chatbots have begun with text that appears intended to be pasted into the Subject field on an email form.

Examples

Subject: Request for Permission to Edit Wikipedia Article - "Dog"

Subject: Edit Request for Wikipedia Entry

Subject: Request for Review and Clarification Regarding Draft Article

Subject: Concerns about Inaccurate Information

Subject: Behavioral issues and Wikihounding by User:Binksternet

Section titles in plain text

AI chatbots sometimes generate messages with text broken into sections separated by text that appears intended to be the titles of said sections. When copy-pasted, such text may either appear with Markdown or as plain text.

Misuse of section subheadings

Some LLM-generated comments contain level 2 or level 3 subheadings, or syntax intended to produce those subheadings, sometimes in Markdown, in which cases ## is used to denote each section. In some cases, the syntax for subheadings appears in replies, where indentation prevents subheadings from forming.

Examples

== Appeal Against Speedy Deletion of "Advanced Multiple Incorporation Canada" ==

[...]

=== 1. Notability of Advanced Multiple Incorporation Canada ===

[...]

=== 2. Commitment to Adherence to Wikipedia’s Guidelines ===

[...]

=== 3. Third-Party Coverage and Reliable Sources ===

[...]

=== 4. Transparency and Improvements ===

[...]

=== 5. Commitment to Wikipedia’s Standards ===

[...]

=== Conclusion ===

Transclusion of article maintenance banners

When mentioning maintenance tags, AI chatbots often just write the names of such templates in curly brackets (e.g. {{Example}}), resulting in unintentional transclusions. These can be avoided by typing tl| between the opening pair of brackets and the template's name (e.g. {{tl|Example}}) so that each mention will instead appear like this: {{Example}}

Examples

I would like to open a discussion regarding the recent edits and use of tags such as {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Disputed}}, and {{Cleanup rewrite}}. Additionally, the inclusion of claims about an “Indian disinformation campaign” requires careful consideration and sourcing in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

[...]

3. Use of Maintenance Templates: Adding templates like {{Disputed}} and {{Unreliable sources}} should be done based on a consensus, not to preemptively frame content as problematic. I suggest we come to a consensus before continuing to apply these tags.

Result

Regarding [[WP:TNT]], you've misrepresented it. TNT specifically states it's for "unsalvageable articles" and explicitly notes "If the problems are limited to a section or two, {{section rewrite}} tags are more appropriate." An article with 80+ references addressing a notable topic hardly qualifies as "unsalvageable."

Result

Links to searches

• Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:AI-generated (talk pages only, links and redirects hidden)

Wikilawyering

Wikilawyering is a disruptive practice where someone selectively cites or interprets policies, guidelines, or perceived precedent as justification for their conduct, even if their interpretations go against the purpose of the policies or guidelines they mention. In many cases, users have emphasized their content's compliance (or overlooked their non-compliance) with certain policies and guidelines. This is especially the case for users of AI chatbots, which often generate text that affirms what the user may want others to believe, even if the points they present don't actually hold up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

When an article is tagged as possibly containing AI-generated content, a user might try to defend it by asking accusers to point to specific passages causing concern or reassuring them that the content they've contributed is "neutral", "verified" by citations to reliable sources, and comprises none of the items described in Template:AI-generated, regardless of the amount of actual effort put in to ensure that such claims are true.

Common AI wikilawyering tropes include:

• Affirming that one's content adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A few core content policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:V, are often explicitly referenced.
• Claiming that one has only used AI for basic copyediting and thus their AI-assisted editing hasn't been in violation of WP:NOLLM.
• Claiming that accusations of AI use must be backed by hard evidence asides from stylistic indicators, otherwise accusers are just acting on speculation that detracts from other substantial content problems.