Gathered Work

University of Wyoming.

Detection status
No AI-text or plagiarism detector is named as deployed anywhere on UW's own pages; the teaching center's own knowledge base states "We don't have an institutional license" for Turnitin or another plagiarism detector and discourages their use
Office in these sources
Dean of Students Office · 128 Knight Hall · 307-766-3296 · dos@uwyo.edu — the academic-dishonesty process itself runs through college-level Coordinators and Hearing Officers, with appeals to the Provost's Office under UW Regulation 2-114
Ombuds or advocacy office
Office of the Ombuds — self-described as "informal, confidential, impartial, independent" and serving students, staff and faculty, but its own page states it "is temporarily closed," with questions routed to the Office of the President · uwyo.edu — Office of the Ombuds
Sources last checked
Oct 8, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

UW's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi and individual college standards may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What UW's own pages document

The Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning's (ECTL) knowledge base states plainly, under "Plagiarism Detection" (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026):

"Looking for turnitin or another plagiarism detector? We don't have an institutional license, and ECTL discourages use of plagiarism checkers without extensive discussion about the pedagogical vacuum these types of services can create."

Source: More Tools to Improve your Teaching — Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning. The same page lists alternatives the center recommends instead: "Plagiarism Proof assignments," the ECTL's own Plagiarism Resources page, and "an academic honesty contract." No UW page located in this review documents a Turnitin AI-writing indicator, or any other AI-text detector, as licensed or in use.

The same ECTL page names one AI-related tool under institutional license, in a different category: "UW has an institutional license for Gradescope. Gradescope is a rubric-based grading application that offers instructors online and artificial intelligence-assisted grading and feedback tools that are designed to streamline and standardize paper-based, digital, and code assignments." This is grading assistance for an instructor's own evaluation, not a tool that screens student writing for AI generation or plagiarism, and the page does not describe it as either.

Scope of the search behind the above: a named-vendor sweep of uwyo.edu (Turnitin and its AI-writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of the ECTL knowledge base, UW Regulation 2-114, the Student Code of Conduct, and the Dean of Students' pages. Two exam-security tools were found and are recorded for completeness, not as AI-text detectors. WyoCourses' own Integrations FAQ states: "The university contracts with Honorlock for electronic/online exam proctoring," and separately, "[w]hile not a proctoring solution, Respondus Lockdown browser can be used to lock a student's computer, tablet, or Chromebook during an exam to help prevent cheating." Neither description states that either tool evaluates writing for AI generation. No other named vendor was found, and no UW page states that AI detection was deliberately disabled or recommended against for a prior tool — the inventory is a stated absence of an institutional license, not a deactivation.

02Published procedure

What UW's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present
"If the student wishes to be accompanied at the hearing by an advisor of the student's choice, the student must notify the Hearing Officer at least five (5) working days prior to the hearing. The role of advisor shall only be to consult with the student, not to represent the student." — UW Regulation 2-114, §V.D.2.e (revisions adopted 9/12/2019; retrieved Oct 8, 2026). The instructor may likewise bring an advisor under the same consult-only limit. Recording of the hearing itself is not addressed anywhere in the Regulation.
What follows on the record
The Regulation defines where a finding is kept and who may see it: "Central Repository: The location at the University where disciplinary records are maintained per the University's record retention schedule. Access is limited to the Dean of Students and the academic deans and/or designees and any other employees of the University who have a legitimate need to know." No specific retention period, transcript-notation rule, or disclosure to a party outside the University (an employer, a licensing board) is stated anywhere in the Regulation; not stated in the sources reviewed.

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

UW Regulation 2-114 (Student Academic Dishonesty) runs a case through the Instructor, the academic Department Head, a College Coordinator, and — if the student disputes the charge — a College Hearing Officer, with appeal to a University Appeals Coordinator designated by the Provost (no on-page date displayed for the page hosting it; the Regulation's own history lists its last Board of Trustees revision as 9/12/2019; retrieved Oct 8, 2026):

"Within five (5) school days of discovering the alleged academic dishonesty, but no more than thirty (30) calendar days after the submission due date, the Instructor will consult with the academic Department Head or designee and shall prepare a Charge of Academic Dishonesty and recommended sanction if the Department Head concurs with the instructor that sufficient evidence of academic dishonesty exists." "The standard of proof shall be 'substantial evidence' which is such evidence that most objective observers would accept as adequate to support a conclusion that Academic Dishonesty occurred. The Instructor or department designee bears the burden of proof." "An appeal of the final decision of the College Hearing Officer must be submitted to the University Appeals Coordinator within thirty (30) calendar days after the college decision is rendered." The grounds are limited to three: the student was denied notice or a hearing; the hearing report fails to describe any act that could be Academic Dishonesty; or "[t]he findings from the hearing were not supported by substantial evidence, were the result of prejudice toward the student, capricious evaluation, or capricious treatment."

Source: UW Regulation 2-114 — Student Academic Dishonesty, linked from the Dean of Students' Student Code of Conduct page as "Information about Academic Dishonesty at UW." Authorized sanctions range from extra or alternative work and a grade reduction through suspension and dismissal from the University; a second finding carries a mandatory one-year suspension and a third results in mandatory dismissal. What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; they are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

03Source map

Where the documents live

DocumentLocation
More Tools to Improve your Teaching ("We don't have an institutional license" for a plagiarism detector; Gradescope's AI-assisted grading license)uwyo.edu/ctl — More Tools (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
UW Regulation 2-114 (Student Academic Dishonesty — process, evidentiary standard, advisor, record)uwyo.edu — UW Regulation 2-114 (PDF) (revisions adopted 9/12/2019; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
Student Code of Conduct (hosts the link to Regulation 2-114; Dean of Students contact)uwyo.edu/dos/conduct (in effect starting July 1, 2025; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
Dean of Students Office128 Knight Hall, 1000 E. University Ave, Laramie, WY 82071 · 307-766-3296 · dos@uwyo.edu — uwyo.edu/dos/conduct (retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
Office of the Ombuds (self-described as independent/confidential/impartial; currently "temporarily closed")uwyo.edu/ombuds (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
WyoCourses Integrations (Honorlock exam proctoring; Respondus LockDown Browser — neither AI-text detection)uwyo.edu/wyocourses/integrations (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-10-08 — Page created in an unattended scheduled build pass; not a human review. All quotations retrieved this date from the pages linked beside them; none displays its own on-page revision date except UW Regulation 2-114, whose own history section dates its last Board of Trustees revision to 9/12/2019, and the Student Code of Conduct page, which states it has been in effect since July 1, 2025. A named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI-writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep (the ECTL knowledge base, UW Regulation 2-114, the Student Code of Conduct, the Dean of Students' pages) found no AI-text or plagiarism detector deployed — the ECTL's own knowledge base states it affirmatively ("We don't have an institutional license") rather than leaving the question silent, and separately discourages plagiarism-checker use. Gradescope is institutionally licensed but for AI-assisted grading of an instructor's own evaluation, which the page itself does not describe as plagiarism or AI-writing detection; that distinction is preserved on the page. Honorlock (exam proctoring) and the Respondus LockDown Browser (exam lockdown, "not a proctoring solution") were found on the WyoCourses Integrations FAQ and recorded for completeness; neither description claims either evaluates writing for AI generation. The dedicated Respondus FAQ page the initial sweep located (uwyo.edu/students/respondusfaq) returned a 404 on re-check and was dropped in favor of the WyoCourses Integrations page, which states the same point and was already in the recipe. A lead not used. Two University of Wyoming Board of Trustees contract-disclosure search snippets (a March 2026 and a September 2025 public-session report) named "Turnitin LLC" among contract line items, which would complicate the ECTL's "no institutional license" statement if confirmed. The underlying PDF could not be located at a stable URL in this pass — the board's agenda-and-reports pages returned 404s and 500s to direct navigation, and the search snippet text is not a first-party capture — so nothing from it is stated on the page; a future pass with working navigation to the Board of Trustees site should resolve this rather than leave it unmentioned. Office finding. UW's academic-dishonesty process is administered by college-level Coordinators and Hearing Officers under Regulation 2-114, with appeals to a Provost-designated University Appeals Coordinator, rather than by a single central integrity office; the Dean of Students Office is named because it is the office the Student Code of Conduct page itself uses as the landing point and general contact for academic-dishonesty information, and because the Regulation names it as having Central Repository access. Ombuds finding. UW's Office of the Ombuds meets this site's independence/confidentiality bar on its own description, but its own page states it "is temporarily closed," with the Office of the President named as the point of contact in the interim — recorded as both facts together rather than either alone. Deliberately not used: a department-level (Communication across the Curriculum) assessment-findings PDF that recommended the university "invest in AI detection software such as GPTZero," which was not added to the capture recipe and is not quoted, since it is one committee's internal recommendation rather than an institutional statement, though its existence is consistent with the ECTL page's own statement that no such license exists. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-08).

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.