Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Possible AI-using editors

Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Possible AI-using editors

This reads a little bit like a hit-list or wall of shame. If there are individuals using AI in a way which contradicts Wikipedia policy, that's one thing and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. After all, that's (partly) what the WikiProject is here for. But simply listing people here for suspecting of using AI reeks a little of guilt by association, and unhelpful in building an encyclopaedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it seemed weird to me too. If there's a problem, it should go to an appropriate noticeboard, I would think. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete; this was created really early in the wikiproject's development when we were still barely keeping up with a big spike in AI-generated slop on here and is no longer necessary or maintained actively. the user warning templates now sort into invisible categories. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surplus to requirements, as explained by Sawyer. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list consists of aspersions that other editors are acting in bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively, for now. Even though this is not a Userpage, the best applying standard is found at WP:UPNOT, in a section where the text does not match the bold row text or shortcut,

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Is it a wall of shame, implying permanent, or is it a rolling list being addressed? Being identified or accused of using mass AI generated material for contributions is negative, but I think it is justified as there is a “very good reason”. Unattributed AI contributions is an attribution failure, and a red flag for quality failure as AI content is currently to be suspected of reading OK but being capable of being grossly flawed. Are named users approached on their usertalk page and invited to respond? Yes. That’s good enough for a transitory listing.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]