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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

User:Sawyer777, is the use of AI to generate content a passed fad? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's still an issue, there's just more awareness of it now and we've got more efficient ways to deal with it on Wikipedia than back in november-december. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m guessing, this was useful while trying to deal with the initial problem of AI contributions, and that use has passed, and that it should be archived, or deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not constructive or required for the project. Editors using AI in ways that contradict policies or are disruptive can be warned and blocked, there's no need to have a list of "possible suspects" hidden somewhere. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and blank the list: IIRC this was intended as a centralized area for members to check the edits and revert/warn/whatever. This did not happen, and it turned into a wall of shame. However, I think this page is in the historical interest and should be kept tagged historical (as it already is) and the list should be courtesy blanked but available in the history. Diverging Diamond (is Queen of Hearts's alt; talk) 19:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the historical interest in keeping this? It seems like it has been superceded, as you say. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.