Wikipedia talk:Help, I've been accused of AI!

The framing is intellectually dishonest

… because the title promises helpful content about dealing with a particular accusation, but then does not deliver any content about such an accusation and pulls the rug on the reader by saying that being asked a question is not an accusation (which it is not), while leaving aside the whole topic of being accused of AI, which would not be done by asking, but by … yes … it would be done by accusing. As if it were impossible to accuse someone of AI. It’s absolutely possible: You do it by not asking the suspected AI misuser the question and accusing them instead. You can accuse them on their talk page or in the form of a report to administrators, such as at ANI.

This questionable framing is not aligned with honesty as an editorial value, making the essay not very effective rhetorically. A section on accusations is necessary if this title should stay.

What if you are accused of AI but you didn’t AI? You’re innocent. Yes, being accused on Wikipedia is categorically possible. Being innocent is possible. Being guilty is possible. People file reports containing accusations of editorial misconduct, negligence, irresponsible editing, disruptive behavior, incompetence etc. They don’t just ask. You won’t simply be asked. Maybe you will, maybe you won’t. Maybe the first communication you’ll receive related to AI use is a case against you. This is the reality of Wikipedia. And that’s fine. No need to prettify it by suggesting this is a feelgood environment where no one ever gets accused of anything.

Or the title should be changed. —Alalch E. 18:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

agreed. there is no way questioning if someone is using AI can be seen neutrally (analagous to asking if someone was there at 6PM at the local gas station when it got robbed) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is skin left on your hands after all this wringing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Should this be strengthened in the light of WP:NOLLM?

This reads as though it were written for the previous LLM guideline, not the more stringent current one. I think we should be absolutely clear. In particular you should not use an LLM to write new content reflects the last guideline, not the current one which does not limit the prohibition to new content. M kuhner (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Intended distinction between AIUSEISALLOWED and SOWHATIFITSAI

When I introduced these subsections (which have since been merged for being "redundant"), I meant for them to describe somewhat different arguments.

On the other hand, both types of arguments tend to include dubious claims that the draft in question adheres to Wikipedia's other guidelines. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2026

Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI! → Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI useWikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use – Even if that would be uncontroversial, I'm hesitant to boldly move this page myself because that means all the shortcuts that redirect to it and its sections would have to be updated to reflect the title change, and updating all of them accordingly may be tedious to do manually. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley ∨ {\displaystyle \lor } investigateᛅ} 19:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDOIT SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In hindsight, I shouldn't have been so bold after all. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There are bots that fix double redirects created as a result of page moves. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In light of the revelation that the move would not have been uncontroversial after all, I've withdrawn my move review request and reverted my page move, and I'm reopening this discussion. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment Having moved this page to the proposed title and back, it takes around 10 minutes for a human to update every redirect whenever the title is changed, though it might take longer if you always manually type out the title instead of copy-pasting it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to manually update every redirect. Bots will do it for you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Even though I took a moment to get around to retargeting the redirects the second time, I was still able to beat the bots to everything. I couldn't wait long enough for them to do their thing. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm having trouble keeping track of whether or not this move is still being considered, but I think the proposed new name is better than the original one, because it's more business-like. So I would support the requested move if it's still being requested (and I'd support reopening the discussion if it isn't). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I reopened the discussion yesterday. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as before. I wrote the essay. Not everything has to be clinical and bland. We don't have to rename WP:MANDY to "Guide to analyzing press statements," or WP:BEANS to "Guide to avoiding unwanted outcomes," or WP:SPADE to "Guide to discouraging obfuscation."

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

True, but those essays also aren't named Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of giving people bad ideas! or Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of indirect vocabulary! either. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Likewise, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks also isn't titled Wikipedia:Help, I've been blocked! either. Some people seem to take AI (mis)use quite seriously, so a non-casual-sounding title for an AI cleanup page may not be a bad thing to ask for. If "Help" is to stay in the title, I'd at least suggest moving this essay to Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI use! or Help, I've been accused of using AI! to make the title seem complete. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Gnomingstuff. sapphaline (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose i liked the title as pretty descriptive. Also its an essay, so it helps to be a bit colorful User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of using AI! There appears to be a consensus forming against the proposed title, but the current title is the equivalent of saying that a competitive athlete has been "accused of steroids". – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I still insist on Guide to responding to accusations of AI use; my alternative proposal is just a compromise in case the appeal-to-levity arguments prevail. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support the alternative title, "using AI", proposed just above. That's a very good point. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Gnomingstuff, this is a personal essay NOT a guideline, you can't move it just because you aren't a fan of that particular editor's naming sense. It's their essay, not the one you wrote. Adding "using" may be relatively uncontroversial, but that's still their choice to make, it's not going to hurt anyone either way and they shouldn't be forced to do so, that is overly Draconian. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gnomingstuff and I also prefer the current title.

Fortek67 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• So! I saw the initial move proposal. I saw the WP:JUSTDOIT post and thought to reply with something like "Shouldn't Gnomingstuff get a say in this? Token oppose until you two hash it out. It's not my business beyond that." Impostor syndrome and not wanting to add fuel to any fires were the main reasons to leave it be. Seeing as this was relisted: I'll oppose on the grounds that it's a personal essay with endearing snark. As a newcomer, the formal name would clash with the informal tone. Hope we can all go back to article writing and such. :) Cedarshadow (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above purr. The present name fits the topic and editors emotions upon being accused of writing with AI (a mortal sin), and per Gnomingstuff. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Moving the essay

Why?

I wrote the essay, and I liked the former name. It is not actually uncontroversial, and it would be nice if you, you know, asked me first, just out of basic respect. God forbid I do something else for (checks) FOUR HOURS and do not see the supposed snow closure that was extrapolated based on the opinion of (checks) two people. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now nominated the essay for deletion. Congratulations. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thats pretty WP:POINTY, why not participate in the move review? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

a) There was no move review. The whole thing happened in 4 and a half hours.

b) I want the essay gone for reasons that go beyond this. I wrote it in the first place, and I do not endorse it anymore. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not exactly "your" essay anymore, though. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As a well respected contributor for rooting out ai, could you provide suggestions on why you no longer endorse the essay? Your insights are useful even if we may still enjoy what the essay has become User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

fwiw, i would have opposed if i had seen the discussion before it was closed. @MrPersonHumanGuy, i think you closed this too soon. ‑‑gurkubondinn 02:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It was too soon. I've never seen SNOW applied after two comments and five hours. CMD (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. SNOW and... not a single !vote in sight, even! Not one snowflake of that snowball. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this is a mess. Snow did not apply. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As an apology, I've started a move review if anyone's interested. I just started wondering whether those were already a thing, and thankfully they just so happen to be. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

is there anything that would prevent you from just moving it back? it was an undiscussed (or not adequately discussed at least) move after all, and i don't think it should be seen as move warring if you undo it yourself. personally i would just file this under 'shit happens' and 'oops no biggie', but that's just me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is that I've updated all the redirects and shortcuts to account for the new title, and undoing the move means I would have to revert the retargeting of all those redirects.

I updated them because I noticed that each redirect to a section or anchor (e.g. WP:AIATA → Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI! § What not to say) had become a double redirect to just Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use, and that made me worry that bots designed to fix double redirects would simply retarget all of those redirects to the new page name without a corresponding section or anchor title in each link, so I decided to manually retarget all of them myself and was able to beat the bots to all of them. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Do those redirects have the {{r to section}} rcats? My guess (and this is a guess) is that the bots would handle it correctly. If not, we'd just have to use the Special:WhatLinksHere page to go through them and undo the removal of the section titles. fwiw, i think that this might be worth the effort in this case, and i'd be willing to help you trawl through this. i like this essay quite a lot (but shouldn't !vote in the MfD), so i hope that we can keep it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that you've mentioned {{R to section}}, I've gone ahead and added those to the redirects that need it so that bots can automatically retarget them correctly when the page is moved back. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I dont think you need a move review if you agree that the move was premature. Just undo it.

Reviews are usually if the closer thinks their action was justified, dont want to undo, and others disagree? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As has been suggested of me, I reverted my move. I also withdrew the move review beforehand. I still want the new title, but I recognize that I should've remained hesitant to move it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should have directly said I supported the move. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)