Editing Eurovision Wiki:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard (section)

== [[Herbert A. Parkyn]] AI enhanced image  ==

[[User:Erik Baas]] seems insistent on keeping an [[:File:Dr. Herbert Arthur Parkyn.png|AI-“upscaled” image]] in this article. I would strongly prefer something that didn’t utilize artificial intelligence with all its notorious unreliability, for example [[:File:Ad for Dr. Parkyn's book Special Mail Course in Hypnotism and Suggestive Therapeutics, 1898 (cropped).png|this image]] I cropped from an ad on Commons. Maybe it’s not the greatest or prettiest but IMO AI should just be avoided wherever possible. Thoughts? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 19:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

:This appears to be a content dispute. Everybody is entitled to their person opinion about which image is better and why, but one option being AI is not a justification for bypassing the consensus process, nor for canvassing editors to the discussion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::I’m not canvassing; I just think the article is too low-traffic to get a second opinion naturally. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 20:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Then you should have posted a ''neutral'' notice at [[WP:3O]], a suitable wikiproject or other venue (part of) whose purpose is for attracting attention to content disputes. Instead you posted a non-neutral notice to a strongly-opinionated board whose purpose is unrelated to content disputes - that is unarguably canvassing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] are you aware of [[MOS:AIUPSCALE]]? Given that the picture in question seems to be against the MoS I don't understand how @[[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]]'s original post is canvassing ''(added) or a content dispute'' [[User:NicheSports|NicheSports]] ([[User talk:NicheSports|talk]]) 22:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::If the image is not compliant with the MOS guideline (which you will note does state "generally") then that is an argument that should made in the discussion and will be a strong factor in determining consensus. It has absolutely no bearing on whether a non-neutral summary of a content dispute at a non-neutral board not related to content disputes is or is not canvassing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Also, the ''only'' purpose of this noticeboard is content issues. That's literally the entire point. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 22:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The purpose of this noticeboard is {{tpq|for reporting issues of AI misuse}}, not content disputes. Also, despite the name the guide linked in the instructions about the purpose of this noticeboard makes it clear it's related to issues of LLM-generated text, not disputes about whether or not to use an AN image. However, even if it ''were'' a relevant place to bring content disputes that doesn't excuse the blatantly non-neutral summary. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Hey @[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], a request. Can we get a little more [[WP:AGF]] and a little less wikilawyering here? Saying that image-related questions are out of scope for this noticeboard is a bit much. Yes, the original request could have been written more neutrally. But fundamentally, a user identified an MOS-violating AI upscaled image and reported it to the AI noticeboard. This seems reasonable, and even constructive. I think a better course of action than a black-and-white portrayal of this as canvassing/improper would have been to point out the relevant MOS guideline to both involved users and suggest to Dronebogus - maybe on their talk page - how to phrase the post more neutrally [[User:NicheSports|NicheSports]] ([[User talk:NicheSports|talk]]) 22:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::What Dronebogus did here was write a non-neutral summary of a content dispute they are involved in at a venue that is non-neutral with regards the dispute as framed. Whether they intended the post as canvassing or not, that is the textbook definition of canvassing. If using this board, intentionally or otherwise, for canvassing is not pointed out then other editors are more likely to (in good or bad faith) use the board for the purpose in the future which is not in anybody's interest. The issue is not one that requires the attention of this noticeboard, neutrally written or otherwise. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I am not sure that this is the best characterization of what happened, so let's try a third opinion I guess? {{@AINBA}} can someone provide a third opinion on the issues discussed in this thread? Thanks [[User:NicheSports|NicheSports]] ([[User talk:NicheSports|talk]]) 23:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Responding to the ping. This noticeboard is for assessing compliance with [[WP:AIPOLICY|AI-related policies, guidelines, and community norms]] (including the [[MOS:AIUPSCALE]] style guideline), and for responding to content and conduct disputes related to AI use on Wikipedia. This venue is as neutral as [[WP:RSPAM|the spam noticeboard]] (under the scope of [[WP:WPSPAM|WikiProject Spam]]), which is for assessing and responding to reports of edits in relation to [[WP:SPAM|the spam guideline]] and related community norms.{{pb}}Dronebogus is allowed to start a discussion on this noticeboard indicating that they believe an edit to be in violation of the [[MOS:AIUPSCALE]] style guideline. When an editor starts a discussion on any noticeboard, instead of merely posting a notification on a noticeboard about another discussion elsewhere, the editor is allowed to express their point of view in the discussion they start. In short, I don't see the problem with Dronebogus's participation here. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 06:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tpq|Dronebogus is allowed to start a discussion on this noticeboard indicating that they believe an edit to be in violation of the MOS:AIUPSCALE style guideline.}} Except that isn't what they did. They came here to attract support for their position in a content dispute about which image to use on an article. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Um, no, I came here to ask for a third opinion because the other user isn’t responding. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Also responding to the ping. A notice about an issue with [[MOS:AIUPSCALE]] does fall under the scope of this noticeboard, although, being a single issue (rather than repeated AI use necessitating large-scale cleanup), it could have just as well been raised on the article's talk page. Content disputes, when the content in question may break existing policies, can still absolutely be in scope for noticeboards (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]] or [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard]]). In this case, the applicable policy is:{{tqb|[[AI upscaling]] software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.}}The policy is quite straightforward, especially in the case of original historical images (such as this one), where the policy specifies they {{tq|should always be used}}, so this should be clear-cut enough. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping| Thryduulf}} you don’t appear to be a regular contributor to [[wp:AIC]] why have you come to this noticeboard seemingly just to start fights about minutiae? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Firstly, I have this page watchlisted so that I can keep abreast of the AI issues that people are seeing, I didn't come here specifically for anything. Secondly, why does it matter who calls out canvassing as canvassing? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Are postings at [[WP:FTN]] canvassing? [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 12:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Potentially. I don't follow that board and have no recent direct experience but I do know there are accusations that it has (or at least had, I've not heard much either way recently) an extremely pro-sceptic culture. A non-neutral post asking participants of a board with a clear POV to support the poster in a clear content dispute is almost always going to be canvassing. A neutral notification alerting participants to potential issues with content by someone not involved in a dispute about that content is rarely going to be canvassing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::You are wasting everyone’s time with this one-against all [[Wikipedia:IDHT]] crusade. You are an admin; act like one instead of a Reddit mod. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|Also, despite the name the guide linked in the instructions about the purpose of this noticeboard makes it clear it's related to issues of LLM-generated text}}
::::::...so, in other words, a content issue. Text is content. Literally what are you even talking about? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 05:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] if you cannot understand the difference between a content dispute and the general issues with content that get discussed here then it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block. As you ''haven't'' been, then I can only presume that your comments here are not the result of incompetence but something else. Quite what that is I don't know, but it's not a good faith reading of basic norms. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Hi! Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], especially since Gnnomingstuff's position, while not unanimous here, is perfectly reasonable, and accusing them of having further undisclosed motivations is not the most charitable reading of the situation (which is that you two have different reads on what the exact scope of the board is). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Why are you being so hostile? What did I do to you? All I said was that this board is to discuss issues with content, which is something you have also said. Please point me to the policy that magically redefines "content dispute" to be something other than a dispute about content. It's not [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE]] (which outright suggests asking relevant various WikiProjects and noticeboards). [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 14:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, I don't get this either -- goodness knows Gnomingstuff, you and I don't always agree, and yeah, @[[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]], that wasn't a neutral notification, if you need a third opinion on AI-MOS issues, just use {{tl|Please see}} in future, but the CIR block threat and comments about incompetence are just downright wrong and insulting. I'm very unimpressed, @[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 19:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I don’t see how it’s not neutral or even why it has to be given AI is generally discouraged by policy. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 19:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, given that neutrality is subjective, it's really best to keep things and concise as possible. In general though, presenting arguments for one side (this particular use is against policy, you don't believe AI upscaling should be used, ect), but without giving the other party in the dispute a right to respond is not, from my perspective, a neutral notification, @[[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]]. Even if you don't agree with that, then think about it a different way - {{tl|Please see}} is the unofficial, widely-used, and reccomended way of notifying people. It is much harder for somebody to accuse you of canvassing when you use it. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 19:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Erik Baas should’ve received a ping from me mentioning him. In any case I’ll be sure to use the “please see” template in the future [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 19:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thank you. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 19:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I’ve pinged them; hopefully they’ll actually respond [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 19:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|Quite what that is I don't know, but it's not a good faith reading of basic norms.}} This comment is really out of line, especially considering how adamant you normally are that we should assume good faith in AI-related discussions. There's no reason whatsoever to doubt Gnomingstuff's good faith or competence here. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 15:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree, and it's disheartening to see a fellow admin doubling down on [[WP:IDHT]] [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]]. And then to bring up [[WP:CIR]]? Well, [[WP:BOOMERANG]] comes to mind. On the other hand, being here over 20 years (almost that long for me) I can understand that one can occasionally feel jaded, so I can assume good faith and chalk up Thryduulf's unbecoming lapse to that. I've felt that way too, moreso since this AI infection Wikipedia is experiencing.
:::::::::The initial comment by Dronebogus could have been worded better, but there is no doubt that an AI cleanup issue was being reported, and this noticeboard is an appropriate venue for making such reports. I see an irrelevant mountain being made of a molehill here. The alleged content dispute could have been ignored and the report taken in the context of what this noticeboard is for. It's a pity that didn't happen. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 06:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)