Hi Benlisquare, sorry to bother you as I know you are probably busy, but I want to follow up on our Han Taiwanese discussion. The creator of the Han Taiwanese article Lysimachi has added a lot of citation tags to the Han Chinese article, such as this [1] and many more (the user has added a lot more citation needed tags). While I have no problem with adding tags to unsourced statements, some of the sentences Lysimachi added tags to are fairly obvious knowledge and now paragraphs after paragraphs are flooded with tags. I'm not sure if Lysimachi is trying to do this to show that Han Chinese/term doesn't exist, or other reasons, but the over flooding of tags is a bit strange. What do you think?--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably find some time to get back onto Wikipedia and catch up on the time that I've missed eventually. For the time being though, I genuinely have zero time. --benlisquareT•C•E13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the UK now. Most british classmates agree with me, they say Welsh is another language, dialect is the same language that you can communicate with each other, but the accent or pronunciation of some words may be a little different. That's why I always tell others we should call Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese different Chinese languages, not dialects.
@Jasonwu889: This is not about me, this is about community consensus. If you want to make changes, you need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS through talk page dialogue, rather than edit warring. Varieties of Chinese can be called different things ("language", "dialect", "variety", etc.) depending on your personal point of view, and based on the most recent community consensus established at WP:WikiProject China last year (in 2015), varieties of Chinese are to be referred to as dialects; if you disagree with this, start another community discussion on this issue. Per Wikipedia policy, do not engage in edit warring even if you believe that you are correct and everyone else is wrong; Wikipedia is built upon consensus and verifiability, and not "the truth". The problem with your edits is that, although you believe that your edits are "truthful", no academic scholar within the fields of linguistics ever refers to Mandarin as "Beijing accent", they use the word dialect or variety. Your edits refer to Cantonese as a "part of Chinese", which makes no sense from a language glossary standpoint; some scholars call Cantonese a language, some scholars call Cantonese a dialect, but never a "part". Your edits introduce words that are not used in academia, which constitutes WP:Original research. --benlisquareT•C•E02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your Welsh example is rather poor, since English is a Germanic language (Anglo-Saxons migrated from northern Germany and invaded the British isles, they were not indigenous like the Celts), and Welsh is a Celtic language, that's like comparing Russian (East Slavic) and French (Romance). You would have been better off comparing the Croatian language with the Serbian language. In regards to Chinese, the status of "dialect" and "language" is a complex one because not even scholars can agree upon what Chinese varieties are. The disagreement is documented in greater detail within the Chinese language article. --benlisquareT•C•E03:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
they [academic scholars within the fields of linguistics] use the word dialect or variety. That's interesting and as far as I'm aware, unheard of. Do you know if this has been discussed on Wikipedia before? It may be worth bringing to discussion. →Σσς. (Sigma)01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: Per Varieties of Chinese and Chinese language#Nomenclature, academics based in mainland China generally refer to language varieties of Chinese (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wuu, Hakka, Hokkien) as dialects. There are many reasons for this, the largest probably being politics-related (since the late 1920s, the Kuomintang government of the Republic of China (1912–49) pushed a somewhat nationalistic mindset that the varieties were merely dialects of the one language, in an effort to promote a sense of national unity); currently in mainland China, arguments often repeated by Chinese linguists include a cross-intelligible writing system (which has more to do with diglossia and linguistic prestige than actual linguistic closeness, in my opinion), parallel etymologies for words and the identical manner in which various expressions are used.
Many linguistics experts in the west, such as Victor H. Mair, refer to Chinese varieties as "Chinese languages" instead, on the basis that there is as much difference between spoken Mandarin and spoken Cantonese than French and Spanish. Conversely, however, those such as Jerry Norman argue that it makes no sense to refer to Mandarin, Cantonese and Hokkien as languages based on the mutual unintelligibility argument because they themselves are language groups with local geographic variants that may not be mutually intelligible with one another (e.g. Hong Kong Cantonese is not mutually intelligible with Cantonese varieties from a wide number of rural Guangdong villages further north). John DeFrancis similarly argues that Chinese varieties cannot be "dialects" due to lack of mutual intelligibility, but cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated.
Note that in the 1930s there was a similar case in Japan, where the Japanese government officially considered Korean and Palauan (see South Pacific Mandate) as dialects of Japanese due to political reasons, and even today the Japanese government considers Ryukyuan languages dialects of Japanese, even though they are not mutually intelligible with Japanese and western linguists consider them a separate language group.
Ultimately, I feel as though the disagreement has more to do with national identity rather than a scientific rationalisation of the aspects of language. Nevertheless, Wikipedia refers to them as Varieties of Chinese, mainland Chinese scholars call them "dialects", and many scholars outside of China call them "Chinese languages". A language is a dialect with an army and navy probably applies here as well. Previous discussions on Wikipedia relating to the issue of Chinese languages and dialects include this, this, this, this; there could be more discussions that I've missed. --benlisquareT•C•E04:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. I'm vaguely aware of the political efforts by the Chinese government, indeed to promote national unity. And I'm also aware that western linguists often call them languages, and not dialects.
Chinese varieties [...] cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated. And langues d'Oc or Picard can, why?
And I didn't know about Japan and Ryukyu; that's very interesting, thanks. And I've glanced at those past discussions.
Concerning the article in question, I don't think fully reverting Jasonwu889's replacements is completely warranted, eg in usage of varieties other than Standard Mandarin (Putonghua) is officially discouraged by the government [...] As a result, younger populations are increasingly losing knowledge of their local dialects. (bold indicating the change). And I think leaving the use of "Cantonese dialect" as it is throughout the article may misleadingly suggest that Yue and Mandarin are closely related. Thoughts? →Σσς. (Sigma)04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: This discussion primarily arose due to edits that he made which consisted of terms that he essentially made up:
This edit is problematic in that it uses the WP:OR "Beijing language" (there is no such thing), and referred to Cantonese as a "part of Chinese" (refer to my comments above, there is no such thing as a "part" in linguistics)
This edit is problematic in that it uses the term "Beijing accent", which again, is not used within any academic publications focused on the Chinese languages.
In regards to this article, Wikipedia uses "dialect" within articles throughout the project to describe varieties of Chinese, and so the revert was made on the basis of uniformity, being consistent and systematic between different articles sharing a similar topic, and years-long consensus where the status quo was to use one set of terminology over another (and to explain the differences and disagreements to the reader). Of course, consensus can change, however we would need a formal discussion over the issue to address that before we can move forward. This is why I asked the user to start a discussion thread on the talk page so that editors could come up with an eventual agreement. --benlisquareT•C•E05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I didn't notice those edits. I found out about this whole thing from reading this article due to unrelated circumstances, and seeing the page history.
Wikipedia uses "dialect" within articles throughout the project to describe varieties of Chinese In the WP:CHINESE discussions you linked to, I didn't see that they ever ended in an agreement on whether to title them as dialects or languages or what, or how to refer to them in articles. They mostly fizzled out after making the moves to remove "(linguistics)" from the titles. And WP:CHINESE itself currently says Which name for each particular variety is best, often depends on the article and its context, for titling. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Language says The question of whether the primary lects of Chinese are languages or dialects is disputed. In mainspace, (non-exhaustively sampled) Dialect#Greater China reads: Cantonese is still the most commonly used language [...] (emphasis mine), and Talk:Dialect doesn't seem to have much discussion about it though.
There is a lack of agreement on how to write about Chinese varieties, hence why I would prefer there to be discussion taking place so that we can eventually finalise an ultimate decision on the issue, rather than have different editors at different times make back-and-forth changes all over the place. What we have right now is the current status quo remainingly largely unchallenged for quite a long time, however there are sporadic changes in various articles made by editors who change the terminology to what they personally believe should be used (language/dialect/topolect/regionlect/etc.), and since it's impossible for people to watch over every single article, this is why we are getting more and more inconsistencies between different articles. Rather than having the current situation continue, we really need a formal discussion to be initiated for the purpose of finding an outcome, however until then I'm not sure about letting more editors make back-and-forth changes for terms like the most recent ones mentioned above. --benlisquareT•C•E00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the status quo then it's hard to come up with cases that actually do challenge it, as vaguely nonexistent as it is. I agree that we should seek a final solution to this question. Do you think an RfC on how to refer to the languages in articles would be reasonable? If so, we might want to compile the necessary evidence and context to prepare for one. →Σσς. (Sigma)05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a RfC is definitely the way to go. There are various places to advertise it, including WP:WikiProject Linguistics and WP:WikiProject China, to gain the attention of editors familiar with the topic. As for context, we can simply list out the pros and cons for each of the terms that are used by different people, unless you had a more detailed summary in mind. --benlisquareT•C•E08:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're certainly more knowledgable about the political side, so I'm sure you've already got something in mind. What aspects of linguistics (and its intersection with politics) do you think the summary should focus on, that are most consistent with NPOV and COMMONNNAME for this? →Σσς. (Sigma)06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: My apologies, I've been extremely busy for the past few weeks, and have not have any chance at all to touch base on anything Wikipedia-wise. I have read your email, and think that there isn't a clear-cut solution, but ultimately we would have to make a practical balance between what's verifiable and what's neutral. The situation ultimately is that we are required to place more WP:DUE emphasis on verifiable claims, but it might be the case that this will increase the perception that WP is "taking sides" within the debate as ultimately there is a limited volume of English-language publications which takes the government's side of things.
Accessibility to Chinese print publications is quite difficult as there aren't many internet resources that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and freely provide the content free of charge (I don't even think Chinese journals use the DOI system). There probably are a few Chinese online websites that discuss the issue of Chinese dialects/languages, but many fall within the realm of non-RS due to being of questionable quality (poor editorial control, resembles more of something from the blogosphere, etc). --benlisquareT•C•E14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
我之前看到Chinese Wikipedia这个条目(article)的第二段“The Chinese Wikipedia is the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia after Hudong Baike (互动百科), Baidu Baike (百度百科) and Soso Baike (搜搜百科).”有一个来源请求(Citation needed)的标记，所以就进行了修改。然后刚刚发现了阁下对我的编辑进行了回退(undo)，所以想问一下您的回退原因是？
我对那一段的编辑原因是：我不认为中文维基百科是“第四大的网络中文百科全书（the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia）”。
首先，我认为这个排序没有意义，而且这个排序也缺乏来源，至少我目前找不到有对中文网络百科全书的排序。如果要我排列的话，我认为中文维基百科至少应该有“第二大(the second largest)”，甚至是“最大(the largest)”。因为我认为这个排序的依据是多方面的，不能单纯从使用人数来排列，还应该综合使用范围。百度百科、搜搜百科、互动百科的主要使用者是来自中华人民共和国大陆地区。而中文维基百科的主要使用者除了来自中华人民共和国大陆地区，还来自香港、澳门和台湾地区，还有一部分来自Malaysia(马来西亚)以及Singapore(新加坡)。所以中文维基百科的使用者很广，比搜搜百科、百度百科和互动百科广。
Glad I found someone fluent in both Chinese and English, and may know the Mainland China very well. (I can recognise some Chinese characters, but I'm not fully fluent in Mandarin at all.)
Anyway, here's the tasks I think you can do on the matter.
Add the things about Rainbow Ruby using the given sources.
Especially, care must be taken when writing a passage about the show being named one of the 弘扬社会主义核心价值观动漫 for 2016, so the casual readers cannot misunderstand anything about it. You can give sufficient explanation about 弘扬社会主义核心价值观动漫扶持计划, including its history.
Create two articles at the English Wikipedia as a translation of 社会主义核心价值体系 and 社会主义核心价值观 at the Chinese-language Wikipedia to give some context.
Hello Benlisquare, I have seen that you are quite active and apparently a native Chinese speaker/reader.
I have vectorized the the above mentioned map and would also like to add the Chinese inscriptions in the lower left corner, lower right corner, upper right corner and around Lake Baikal. I do not need translations of the map inscription (i.e., names of provinces, Cities etc.) – they have already been done.
Would it be possible for you to help me and proved me with the Chinese text (preferably in traditional letters but I can additionally provide a map with simplified letters).
Even if this map is not undisputed, it would be much easier to change it in vector format than in the current raster image format.
Hello, Benlisquare. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chiang family, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Chiang family to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.
If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.
It seems I’m being accused of being your sockpuppet because we agreed with one another on the Wuhan coronavirus requested move a couple times. You might want to say something on your behalf. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expressing your ideas so well. Though I disagreed with you I find it hard to not praise your arguments. Thanks for all your time at Talk:Taiwan! I wish you all the best, and stay safe and away from COVID-19!!!
Hello! You're quite knowledgeable about Chinese politics, so maybe you can answer a quick question for me. Which title is preferred when referring to the head of the Chinese government? President? Or General Secretary? I've seen articles use both, but I'm not certain which is to be used while keeping an article within WP:NPOV. I've looked around, but I can't seem to find a concrete answer to this. Thanks in advance for your help! Aguy777 (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I just had a look at your userpage out of curiosity. I never thought I'd see the day that Hotwheels would show up on my Wikipedia talk page, of all places. How have you been these years? The last time I've paid close attention to your situation was when that Vice News video came out. --benlisquareT•C•E10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing all right. I would prefer that name not be used, per “Hotwheels” — a postmortem (which also includes statements in re: Watkins, 8chan I no obviously longer agree with). HW has never been a name I used online for myself; e.g. on Freenode my nick is copypaste, that's why I thought the title was clever in 2016. (Some WP:RS's have gotten this wrong, and I don't care enough to go make another WP:ER. I have no idea how I'd even prove this anyway.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I'll respect your wishes; I wasn't aware you found the name displeasurable, it was the name that I generally saw used when describing you in the communities I previously took part in, and assumed you were still tagging along with it. I'm still a little starstruck to be honest, seeing your userpage was very unexpected. Changing the subject, I'm glad to have found out today that you have an interest in writing systems as well. --benlisquareT•C•E11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Yes, I edited here anonymously for quite a while. Ironically my first interaction with the community was very positive, I was one of the pieces of evidence that got Ryulong blocked during the whole GamerGate WP:ARBCOM fiasco. See e.g. User_talk:Loganmac#Thanks. In re: writing systems, I do indeed. I planned to rewrite the baybayin article, but I've just never had time. Instead I wrote an accepted Unicode proposal[3]...but if I ever make it back to the Philippines, and to the Ateneo de Manila University library, it's very possible I'll get around to that. I think most of us have a few pages we really want to either write or rewrite, but don't have time for. Until recently 2channel was one of mine; currently it's a WP:GA candidate. I hope it's accepted, so I can get it on WP:DYK, but one thing at a time. 😛 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through your Baybayin proposal, nice work on the acceptance. Years ago I've always intended to write Wikipedia articles about non-standard Japanese kana and regional variant kanji, but never ended up finding the time for it. These days, my presence on Wikipedia is much more passive compared to before. --benlisquareT•C•E15:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguy777: If you want to be accurate and precise, paramount leader would be the best option, since the head of state is generally represented by an overlap of three different titles (head of the military, head of the party, president of the PRC). A lot of news websites like BBC might use "president" since it's easier to digest for general audiences, but I feel Wikipedia can afford to be more precise than that. --benlisquareT•C•E10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare: Thanks for the prompt response! Based on your explanation, I assume it's acceptable (or, at least, not wrong) to use a term like General Secretary, but preferred to use paramount leader? I must admit, I haven't seen that title used on many articles. Aguy777 (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Benlisquare, it's me again. This message is regarding something very stale, it happened in 2015, but I feel the need to bring your attention to it because at that point you were already an editor for ten years. (That is to say, this wasn't a noob mistake.) You added a BLP violation to Hiroyuki Nishimurahere. It survived in the article five years, until tonight, when I caught it and removed it as part of trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article.[4] You accused Nishimura of organi[zing] a series of distributed denial of service attacks against 2channel based on a source by "Anonymous Japan"[5], complete with Guy Fawkes mask. Even if this were an WP:RSOPINION, it would have needed to be cited due to the obvious bias (Betrayal), etc.). But, this isn't an WP:RSOPINION. This source also seems to be copied and pasted directly from another source; both make the claim that the LDP was a client of 2channel. I proved this was a hoax at Talk:4chan § Neutrality issues in history section. Organizing DDoS attacks is a crime, we absolutely cannot accuse Nishimura of doing that based on this source. Hope you understand why I removed it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!07:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to straight up admit that I had a lapse in judgement at the time. If I recall correctly, there was a lot of speculation going around at the time based on hearsay, and fueled by the adrenaline of the day, I made the lacklustre decision to use that WP:PARTISAN source to include a mention of the allegations not only on the Nishimura article, but also that of the 2channel page. I suppose it also doesn't help that the wording I used presented the claim in a "matter-of-fact" manner rather than one side's allegation. I'm not going to make up any excuses for this, this was a bad decision of mine in hindsight. --benlisquareT•C•E07:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I didn't even know if it was appropriate to bring it up due to how stale it is, but I did want to tell you I removed it. I do indeed remember how much speculation was going around in 2015. Probably, you figured, "he'll be charged with it", and then we could add that, so it was a placeholder...but it turned out to be a hoax, (or at least unproven/unprovable,) which is why typically we don't put placeholders in WP:BLPs. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people
Hi! Nothing important to say. I was regularly browsing stuff about music casually and searched up J-Pop music. To my surprise, I found out someone had actually written a Wikipedia article concerning this commonly used chord progression in modern Japanese music. I was really excited to see it finally show up, especially since only obscure Youtubers have introduced/showed this idea. I just wanted to say, thanks for your contribution! 142.119.74.109 (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Anon[reply]
I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I saw that you are a member of Wikiproject: China and was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.
Hello! I am an Australian university student currently undertaking a course in Wikipedia writing. As part of my course, I have made significant additions to the Supreme People's Procuratorate article. I noticed that you are an experienced Wikipedian and a participant of WikiProject: China, with an interest in articles about politics. I just wanted to reach out and ask if you have a quick moment to take a look at my article and potentially help with re-assessing its quality. Thank you in advance and hope you have a lovely day! Frangipani13 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I'm currently working on expanding the article Gourd mouth organ as a part of my university unit. I can see that you are an expert in Wikiproject China, can you please help me improve my article by giving any feedback, advice or assessment? Thank you very much! And hope you have a lovely day. Ryssian (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
You mentioned in your edit comment that you had found Russian sources dating back to June 2021, but those aren't included in the article. Do you still have access to them, and is there anything therein about the intents of the cages? BP OMowe (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Takogo kak Putin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2002 Russian pop song "A Man like Putin" inadvertently became adopted as propaganda? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Takogo kak Putin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Takogo kak Putin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your recent editing history at Stable Diffusion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elspea756 (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:LoH Sen no Kiseki cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LoH Sen no Kiseki cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
On 8 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article DreamBooth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while DreamBooth can be used by anyone to fine-tune image generation AI models, the cost barrier to entry is quite high for hobbyist users? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/DreamBooth. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, DreamBooth), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits and harassment.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
May I at least be granted the ability to defend myself at WP:ANI? There are numerous issues raised regarding me that surely I should be able to respond to. It seems unfair that a rapid turn of events completely takes place strangely while I'm asleep (UTC+11), and completely disproportional (indef) to the alleged infraction that I've committed given my 17 year history of zero blocks, zero topic bans, zero interaction bans. If the ANI community has criticisms to my conduct (and certainly plenty of my remarks made in frustration can be undoubtably viewed as over the line, I 100% admit and do not deny), I am willing to engage in dialogue and hear constructive feedback in relation to how I may improve, however from my perspective this dialogue is a two-way street. --benlisquareT•C•E21:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline, since the ANI discussion was already closed, as noted below. You may submit a new unblock request here, but to have a chance of success, it should discuss why you engaged in the pattern of ridiculous behavior criticized in the ANI thread, and contain a credible promise to edit usefully and appropriately from now on. If the reviewing admin is considering unblocking, they may choose to open a new ANI discussion for community input first, at their discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Since the matter at ANI was closed, you are more than welcome here to address the concerns that were brought up in that thread. This was not a community block or ban, so any admin can judge your unblock request on its merits and unblock if it's felt it is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged.
@Acroterion: - and seems to involve derivative images that may not have a free source... Laundering a sampled image through an image generator doesn't make something self-created - all of my images are non-derivative and self-created using the SD software. While there is certainly an ongoing wider ethical debate regarding whether or not scraping the web to train neural networks is ethical, within the realms of copyright there is no issue as diffusion models do not utilise existing images to create new images, instead they generate images that resemble various concepts (e.g. "a cat", "a picasso-style piece") based on their pre-training. At least within US copyright law, piece of work can be copyrighted but things like compositions and motifs cannot. 100 images of a subject with different boob sizes... isn't advancing the encyclopedia or illustrating the concept - this I wholly accept, however the current revision does not feature this problem, and hasn't since September, and I have come to accept this based on feedback from other editors from a while back. I'm happy to discuss my confrontational conduct, but given that I did not resist the removal of the images you are talking about, I feel like I am being painted in a worse light than in actuality. The personal attack is blockable in any case - this I do not dispute, and I would have made the same judgment were the roles reversed.
@Levivich: - incivility... personal attacks - certainly. mocking Islam - In hindsight I can now see how it may be interpreted as mocking, but at the time it certainly felt like a light-hearted way to lighten up the mood, by referencing a common Twitter meme and pointing out that the image is no longer even remotely of a sexually-interpretable nature (a criticism raised by multiple editors on the talk page). You definitely don't have to believe me what I say that no malice to Islam was intended, but this is truly how I felt at the time. These remarks of mine have not been appropriate, and I apologise for offense that I may have caused with these remarks.
@Boing! said Zebedee: - Wikipedia is not supposed to be an open forum for pervs and religious bigots. - the first part is a personal attack, the same thing that I am currently being indefed for. I have caused wrongdoing but I would also not appreciate the label. The second part, I certainly acknowledge that I should have tread more lightly on the sensitive issue of religion; filenames such as "halal edition" and remarks regarding Putin certainly were not constructive, and I fully accept that this lapse of judgement of mine is worthy of admonishment.
@David Fuchs: - how much it is a derivative work is something that will have to get hashed out in courts. Currently AI-generated content is still in a murky area since this is unironically the new Wild West frontier of technology, but eventually US Congress will catch up to things, and Wikipedia can react then. The copyright of AI-generated works should not be a content issue (that is, unless the WP community as a whole decides to pre-emptively come to a decision), so I'd like to keep the dialogue primarily focused on the content dispute, and my conduct therein, if that's alright. Beyond that, if Ben doesn't understand why people are objecting and is getting POINTY with his edits, a block of some sort is appropriate - I fully understand the objections to the image content; I don't think I am trying to prove a point. MrOllie has raised the issue that sexualisation is a major issue in terms of WP:SYSTEMIC, and in my mind, the first thing I think of for "not sexy" is religious attire. The main WP:POINT-y action that I can certainly see is my inappropriate filename, which I acknowledge above as being done in poor taste. Given that Islamophobia is a constant issue that Wikipedia has had to deal with, it's not unreasonable for other editors to find such remarks and filenames to be problematic, and I will not dispute that I should have been more rational in how I approached religion, if I should have approached it at all. --benlisquareT•C•E23:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "shoehorning" I'm referring to is your use of dozens of images intentionally designed to be hypersexualizing of women and girls ("busty young girl", "busty young girl", "French maid teasing") in a supposedly illustrative manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prides itself on covering topics perhaps too distasteful for other, perhaps more prestigious encyclopedias. Sometimes we even dare to illustrate these concepts with images. However, when the article subject is a image software, believing this is the best manner of illustrating an otherwise sterile concept is definitionally shoehorning sexualization; that you have the audacity to believe other editors were being too prudish and defaulting to a grotesque train of Islamophobic imagery and remarks only makes things worse. The fact that this has gone on for months and you failed to reflect on your disruptive behavior despite other editors warning you demonstrates a pattern more than worthy of an indef. If it were up to me, I would give you a global lock. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: English Wikipedia policy pertains to the English Wikipedia, I think it's unreasonable to extend English Wikipedia policy to other Wikimedia projects, especially since Wikimedia Commons is chock-full of content such as this (warning: NSFW link) and this (warning: NSFW link). I'm not arguing "other stuff exists", I'm merely pointing out the reality to which Wikimedia Commons works as a repository of free-licence content. The images you have linked, I have certainly not added to the English Wikipedia, so I don't understand how this is reason to question my conduct in relation to sexuality on the English Wikipedia. This feels punitive rather than preventative; how do my Commons uploads affect my ability to, for example, constructively write articles about linguistics (a common hobby of mine)? Commons has its own content guidelines, and they operate independently to that of the English Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You in fact did add the images linked in my comment to English Wikipedia: this one and many other egregious examples here, the Islamophobic ones were added here. The other examples are reflective of my hope you are unable to further disrupt additional Wiki sites. You show no recognition that your behavior was wrong and no remorse beyond wishing your prejudices had been instead been interpreted as a common Twitter meme. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this has gone on for months - this has gone on since 17 December. I have pointed out that, while I have initially added the image to the enwiki article in mid-September, I gave up after it was removed and did not resist after multiple editors came to a common agreement on the talk page. The article edit history demonstrates this adequately, I feel. reflective of my hope you are unable to further disrupt additional Wiki sites - Why would I bite off my nose to spite my face? Look at things from my perspective; I've been editing Wikipedia for 17 years, why would I intentionally start causing trouble cross-wiki and tighten the rope further, given that these contributions have been a long-running hobby for me? This issue I have caused with the SD article has been a blip in the grand scheme of my contribution history, and you're telling me that I'm willing to trash it all by causing more disruption just to prove a point. You show no recognition that your behavior was wrong and no remorse - see "this I wholly accept", "this I do not dispute", "filenames... certainly were not constructive, and I fully accept...", above. Is there a way I can express this a bit better? Open to feedback. --benlisquareT•C•E00:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there was nothing pervy here, you're very welcome to explain why you thought your hypersexualising "busty young girl" images were in any way appropriate for the unrelated subject you were illustrating. How many non-pervs, when searching for an image to illustrate a technical subject, would think "Oh, I know, a young girl with enormous breasts"? And then when trying to come up with another idea, would think "Got it, a young girl dressed like a maid, looking poised for oral sex"? I'm open to any innocent, non-pervy, explanations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for "pointing out that the image is no longer even remotely of a sexually-interpretable nature". No longer even remotely of a sexually-interpretable nature?! Of course it is - even covered, the girl in your image still clearly has enormous breasts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "rules for thee, but not for me" are the optics you should be going for, when making points relating to my conduct. I do not deny that I have engaged myself poorly over the past few days, and am fully aware that my conduct has consequences, but when a major component of my bad conduct relates to the usage of personal attacks, it feels somewhat in poor taste to be receiving personal attacks. you're very welcome to explain... were in any way appropriate for the unrelated subject you were illustrating - at the time, and still to this day, such prompts are among the most common user-shared prompts in communities such as /r/StableDiffusion. I have no reason to pretend otherwise. A common, standard prompt template to generate a well-drawn, detailed painting of a woman were things like "attractive woman in the style of X" or "young girl depicted in the painting style of Y"; SD, however, is often unpredictable, and there are certain outputs that I do not want to see... adding keywords such as "tall" or "busty" guarantees that SD will not generate images of kids. Not to mention, I could have chosen to completely lie about the prompt used, but I didn't, because I valued full transparency and honesty regarding how the image was generated; if any third-party were reading this conversation right now, they'd probably be thinking that transparency has more downsides as their take-home lesson, and I don't think that would benefit Wikipedia at all (let's not pretend that I'm the only person on the planet capable of generating images with SD, there were SD images uploaded in the past, and there will be SD images generated in the future; we should be encouraging complete honesty and transparency for all AI-generated content). Got it, a young girl dressed like a maid - Was this image added to a Wikipedia article at any time? I don't think so. Yes, I certainly was experimenting with prompts and seeing what the vast possibilities were, as with anyone fiddling around with new, edge-cutting technology in my demographic. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-licence content where anyone can re-use shared content, for both non-profit and for-profit uses. If this image did not meet the content guidelines of Commons, either I would not have uploaded it, or someone on Commons would have pointed out that it didn't meet the content guidelines of Commons. Do you express this level of disdain to other NSFW contributors to Commons as well? For instance, commons:User:Pandavenger, author of File:Futanari2020.jpg? Or commons:User:Niabot, author of File:Futanari.svg? I was under the impression that I was operating under the same rules and expectations as these contributors. No longer even remotely of a sexually-interpretable nature?! I guess we can agree to disagree, since we're now entering the realm of subjective appraisal. At least to me, no, a fully-covered woman is not biologically exciting, and her clothed form resembles the common irl female form, at least where I'm from. You might not agree with my rationalisation, but this is unironically how I internalised this image. I assumed that much of the community would be favourably on-board with the changes, but here we are, and now I know. --benlisquareT•C•E14:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of that really says anything about why *you* thought the "busty young girl" theme was actually appropriate for the use you put it on Wikipedia. "It's popular on Reddit" doesn't come close. Claiming you made your choices so it wouldn't produce even pervier images doesn't cut it either - how about one of the near infinite number of themes that don't involve sexualised girls at all? I know you didn't use the maid image on Wikipedia, but it's part of your apparent liking for such themes. And re: "her clothed form resembles the common irl female form, at least where I'm from" - so you live in a society where girls all have enormous breasts, do you? Give me a break! Also, the fact that Commons hosts other perhaps controversial images has no bearing whatsoever on your use of your images on the English Wikipedia. And finally, you don't really need to worry about my "optics", thanks - I'm not the one blocked for the use of pervy images, religious slurs, and personal attacks. Any admin reviewing any unblock requests is going to base their decision on *your* words alone - and I'd suspect showing some understanding of how pervy your images appear to most people would help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I fully understand how these image uploads appear to other editors now. I was explaining why I didn't before, since I was not given the chance to say anything during the WP:ANI thread, owing to it being a 5-hour indef speedrun during prime Australian sleeping hours immediately before a workday. Sure, nobody on Wikipedia is entitled to due process since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a bureaucracy, but you cannot deny that the ability for one party to frame the situation while another party is absent completely changes the way all bystanders view the situation. --benlisquareT•C•E20:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin reviewing any unblock requests is going to base their decision on *your* words alone - I'm not expecting that I'll be granted the ability to make any future unblock requests. Pbritti has requested a global ban, which means that I soon will lose the ability to edit this talk page. --benlisquareT•C•E20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think any bystanders could have viewed the situation any other way, not if what you've said so far represents the stance you would have taken at ANI had you been able. My take, for example, is not based on how anyone framed anything, but solely on what I saw myself. Anyway, you don't have to convince me of anything - it's between you and the admins now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
meta:Steward requests/Global#Global lock for Benlisquare was raised, as requested through here. Honestly, if I knew it would get this big, I certainly would not have bothered editing anything related to AI at all, let alone generate and upload contentious images using AI. But hindsight is 20/20. I loved the Chinese Wikipedia community, and I certainly will miss bantering around with them. --benlisquareT•C•E21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think any bystanders could have viewed the situation any other way - One of the allegations brought forward was that I had been editwarring over the span of multiple months, which doesn't match the edit history. I first added the problematic images on 27 September 2022. Between 28 September and 8 October, multiple editors on the talk page raise the issue that the example images are particularly sexualised in nature; the images were removed on 13 October 2022 and I did not resist this change. On 11 November 2022, Smeagol 17 writes on the talk page asking if the inpainting images can be re-added; I respond on the talk page on 8 December (but do not add the images myself in articlespace), then on 16 December Smeagol 17 re-applies the images to the article. A back-and-forth between Elspea756 and Smeagol 17 briefly takes place on 18 December. On 22 December, I added the problematic hijab images, which then ensued in an edit war that I did participate in: one, two, three, four. Many of the points raised by bystanders in the ANI thread bring up edit warring as part of my long-term months-long abuse on this article, which contributed to the end result. I fully accept the civility accusations, and I understand that I've been inappropriately making visual content with touchy subjects too, just to be clear. it's between you and the admins now - I am aware. I'd just like to clear the record as much as possible. --benlisquareT•C•E21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the entirety of the related interactions, so I really don't need your selective highlights (and I would suggest anyone else watching should read it all for themselves rather than taking the word of anyone on either side of the discussion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I agree this image was created in bad taste. However, I have not plastered it all over any Wikipedia articles. As a sign of good faith, I would have nommed it for speedy deletion out of compliance with the community, but I won't be able to do so due to the indef. --benlisquareT•C•E21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadı: - may I at least defend myself? You have locked my ability to edit my Commons talk page, so I cannot appeal the block. I believe that, owing to the fact that I have made zero edits to any cross-wiki project since my enwiki indef, I am acting in good faith and have not engaged in any malicious or damaging behaviour. Surely this demonstrates that the risk of cross-wiki damage brought up by Pbritti is extremely low? My interpretation is that COM:NOTWP applies here unless I have demonstrably caused cross-wiki harm in spite of my enwiki indef. Blocks are meant to prevent further disruptive editing, and are not meant to be a punitive measure; I understand that my past actions on enwiki have brought me into disrepute, but I don't understand how permanently preventing me from contributing to English Wiktionary and Chinese Wikipedia, my next most-commonly edited projects (due to my interest in linguistics) relates to this. --benlisquareT•C•E20:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions in other wikis is not important for Commons, contributions can not hide your attitude, please read my blocking reasons again. Also, I give back editing talk page access, you can request unblocking but now I will not unblock you. Best, KadıMessage20:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, benlisquare. Using keywords of “young girl” instead of “woman” gives the impression of a pedophile. Suggest that you propose a topic ban on images of female people. starship.paint (exalt)11:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, Starship.paint. The first search result for ‘young girl’ on Commons is commons:File:Anime Girl.svg. Are Wikimedia projects full of pedophiles? Further down, we have images like:
Are Wikimedia projects full of pedophiles? Yes, especially Commons, because of creepy internet dudes who post and defend shit like "attractive young girl, large breasts". (Personal attack removed) Hey, Ben, and anyone else who thinks your pictures are normal: women are people, not just something to think about when you're jerking off. Stop using AI to make sexualized images of women and posting them on the internet. You're polluting our culture with this crap and reinforcing negative and harmful stereotypes about women. (Personal attack removed) Levivich (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't going to name-call and not going to curse, but the contents of Levivich's comment are correct. When one of the best defenses you can muster is what the definition of "girl" is, uploading that sort of image is just not for you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the contents of Levivich's comment are correct Which part? The part about Wikimedia users having psychiatric disorders? The part about them being incels? Any valid point that Levivich might have had is overshadowed by the ridiculous way their comment is worded overall.
one of the best defenses you can muster is what the definition of "girl" is The definition of ‘girl’ is literally the entire point of this section (starting with starship.paint’s first comment). Brianjd (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna lie, I'd really prefer if we didn't have a prolonged debate over this. I am indef blocked, what's done is done, it's all in the past, it's all over. This is all tiring, and I just want to enjoy Christmas with my family without getting more automated emails about this. Will I submit another unblock request? I might. I might not. I honestly do not know. What I do know is that I certainly need some well-needed time away from Wikipedia, and plenty of self-reflection. --benlisquareT•C•E08:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "without getting more automated emails about this". You can switch off email notifications in Preferences, which is a good way to keep away from Wikipedia for a while. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where's this guy's WP:ANI thread? I will not justify my personal attacks and incivility against Elspea756, and believe that my block was justified. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and the comments above are just as inflammatory as my earlier personal attacks. Hovering over the name using WP:POPUPS, I see he/him · page mover, 31310 edits since: 2018-11-12, last edit on 2022-12-24, so you certainly should know better, as you are not new nor inexperienced. Again, "rules for me, but not for thee" is not the best optics for Wikipedia, which has very clear policy and guideline pages, but is often accused of having selective community enforcement. You're polluting our culture with this crap - I'm not American, and Wikipedia is a global website. You're bound to meet people who are different, and what you should be doing is constructively educating them what your personal boundaries are, and letting them know that you would like these boundaries respected. Commons is used by people from all over the world, so it's quite likely that you'll meet someone whose values do not align. I certainly will not defend Chinese culture, as it has many many flaws, but I will point out that the very things you criticise are highly normalised - to illustrate, the front page of bilibili.tv (the domestic Chinese equivalent of Youtube) affirms this. Is this right? Hell no, and certainly progress can be made. But it's an example of how, as civilisations meet, there is no such thing as "common sense" values. I respect the judgement of the English Wikipedia community and understand that I have undeniably crossed many unacceptable boundaries, and upon lengthy reflection I feel remorse for the objectionable content I have uploaded; my hope is that you too would be able to turn a new leaf and move on from my past misdeeds, especially in the spirit of Christmas. --benlisquareT•C•E22:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first ever high-resolution AI-generated smut uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. No, I don't feel ashamed creating this, it's the 21st Century and the wheels of technology must perpetually turn. — User:Benlisquare, description for File:Stable Diffusion AI-generated painting of nude woman.png (NSFW)
I'm not posting the image linked above because of the nudity, but here is another:
The prompt to create that image: ...cute (((perfect face))) (Evocative pose) (Seductive Smirk) ... slender ((girly hips)) (((thick_thighs)) ... ((exposed midriff)), young maiden ((busty)) ((sheer tight sundress))...sex appeal. The parens () are used for emphasis, so we can see what he wanted the AI to emphasize when generating this image.
Of course those aren't the only sexualized prompts Ben has fed to the AI to generate these images. Let's look at some others:
"...attractive, ((visibly aroused))... - she doesn't look visibly aroused to me, despite Ben's use of double-emphasis; perhaps this is why he had to be more specific in other prompts?
If you have issues with the content I have created and uploaded, I suggest bringing it up with Commons. Commons follows Commons policy, enwiki follows enwiki policy, zhwiki follows zhwiki policy. Any further conjecture here is pointless and unconstructive, as we've already clearly established that everyone will simply be talking past each other. No, I don't feel ashamed creating this, it's the 21st Century and the wheels of technology must perpetually turn. - This file description was written on 1 October 2022; furthermore, even if I wasn't the one to upload the "very first high-resolution smut" to Commons, somebody else would have. It was an inevitable outcome, whether you like this sort of content or not. Lizard-brained males are overrepresented in tech and software, you'd be kidding yourself otherwise. What the hell kind of prompt is that? (And who in their right mind thinks an 18-year-old is fully grown?) - If you actually read the file description properly, it's to emulate the phrasing that an old boomer would write in a Facebook post, to make full effective use of LAION's caption-image pairs. A long while ago now, the SD community has proven through trial-and-error that you get highly effective photorealistic results if you think like a social media user, and type as they would. And finally, when I turned 18, the state deemed me fit for voting, fit to get drafted and die in a war for corporate lobbyists politicians, fit to drive a turbocharged car capable of maiming and killing, fit to purchase a manual-loading centrefire rifle, fit to drink alcohol, and fit to purchase tobacco. If you don't wish to agree with me, that's fine, but I'm sure many people would be in agreement. --benlisquareT•C•E00:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Ehh, that's a bit of a stretch. Someone arguing in good faith would look at something like a visual test to determine intent, and I really can't see the plausible argument that the aforementioned images don't depict young adults. By contrast, someone arguing purely on the prompt usage alone either has a misunderstanding of the neural network training data, or is arguing in bad faith to begin with, so it's not like I'd be able to convince them anyway. A key part of prompt engineering is understanding how the original training set formulates the caption-image pairs, and imitating what the original caption may be for a concept you're attempting to replicate. As mentioned on the SD article itself, LAION scrapes from all over the public web, including Pinterest, Deviantart, Artstation, and various social media; this means that the original caption-image pairs will be phrased in more nuanced ways than robotic-sounding scientific/biological/dictionary definitions, since real-world people, not lab scientists, are the original writers of the text caption data. Colloquially, "girl" can mean many things, with Wiktionary listing a bunch of them; none of the Spice Girls were kids when the band was formed, none of the Radium Girls working the factories were kids, and "What you think I'm playin'? Baby-girl, I'm the man" certainly wouldn't have aired on the radio if T-Pain was singing about kids. Therefore, I feel that a sensible person wouldn't immediately think of "children" when they see these images, unless they really wanted me gone from Wikipedia by any and all means necessary. I mean, I can certainly understand the risk of being interpreted the wrong way, however I have faith that most people on Wikipedia will view this rationally. --benlisquareT•C•E13:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s just say I don’t see you being unblocked by continuing to insist that you are correct. Here is my thought process. (A) Were those images produced those of young girls? No. (B) Is it possible that prompting for “young girls” produces images of women? Yes. (C) Is it possible that prompting for “young girls” produces images of young girls? To my layman mind, the answer is yes, and I believe that this is what a majority of editors would want to avoid. We do not want a newspaper headline: Wikipedia editor produces sexy images based on prompt of young girl. This is horrific optics. We must do our due diligence to keep the topic areas of sexy images and young girls apart, and I do not think you have achieved that. starship.paint (exalt)07:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I also do not intend to make an unblock request any time soon. As mentioned above, I'd like some reflection time, and honestly, it feels liberating not needing to think about "WHAT AM I GONNA WRITE ABOUT ON WIKIPEDIA TODAY WHAT AM I GONNA WRITE ABOUT ON WIKIPEDIA TODAY WHAT AM I GONNA WRITE ABOUT ON WIKIPEDIA TODAY" all the time, and I think I need to find my bearings before I even consider deciding on anything. I understand that you only wish the best, but you also need to understand that nobody on this planet likes to be accused of getting hard-ons for kids, so of course I'm going to have to respond to your initial post that's somewhat provocative with some hard fact-checking. I don't mind being called a racist bigot (I'm not, btw), I don't mind being called an anti-religious bigot (maybe I am? mostly against Falun Gong though, but I have never expressed such sentiments within Wikipedia articlespace), but I draw the line at more serious accusations. --benlisquareT•C•E08:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, nobody would want to be accused of being a pedophile. I don’t think I did that though, I said a particular action gives the impression of a pedophile. Similarly, nobody likes to be accused of giving an impression of being a pedophile - which is why we should avoid such actions that lead to thus. I wish you the best. starship.paint (exalt)10:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starship.paint, Benlisquare knows what he is talking about. The biases come from the material that the neutral network is trained on. That's not his fault. None of the images that he uploaded have anything to do with children or pedophilia. I don't particularly like them, but there is no reason to tar him with those kinds of insinuations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.167 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, even if I assume what you are saying is true, my point stands, we must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, we must remain clean as a whistle. My point is not that benlisquare is a pedophile. starship.paint (exalt)01:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7 months on, I feel that I am ready to productively move on from my misdeeds last December. Certainly, I've been disruptive and incivil in my interactions with other editors over the topic of artificial intelligence, and I do not intend to repeat such actions again. I trust that the community at large can accept that I am capable of demonstrating to everyone that I am able to grow beyond my earlier lapses in judgement through my future actions and contributions, rather than mere empty promises, and I acknowledge that I will need to regain the trust of the community in order to properly reverse the damage that has been done.
I hereby would like to request that I make a return to writing and editing articles. My time away from Wikipedia certainly has been refreshing, to say the least; but even so, there are articles that I still want to write. I believe that, upon taking up WP:OFFER and granted a return to Wikipedia, I will be able to contribute in a manner that is more civil and collaborative, and in accordance with the constructive feedback provided by others. Given that indef blocks are intended to prevent disruption and are not punitive, I would like to provide reassurances that my return would not lead to further disruption; after all, further misdeeds on my part would be ample WP:ROPE to justify a more concrete block. --benlisquareT•C•E19:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)>[reply]
Accept reason:
Benlisquare's request is accepted. Benlisquare has agreed to:
A topic ban from editing about artificial intellegence.
A final warning concerning battleground behaviour, and engaging in this behaviour is considered immediate grounds to reinstitute the block without warning.
A restriction from adding any images that could remotely be considered sensational to Wikipedia.
As someone who was staunchly in the pro-block camp when this first came up—a position I still maintain—I think this is precisely the correct statement and assurance that a blocked editor should offer. Good luck, benlisquare, in both your appeal and your future edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the ANI thread that led to your block, and there were many issues that were brought up. Can you, in your own words:
Describe the reasons why you were blocked,
Describe why these actions were disruptive on Wikipedia,
What you will do in the future to avoid this disruption again, and
If unblocked, what edits do you plan to make on Wikipedia?
Disruptive and combative editing through numerous reverts
Shoehorning objectionable content into article mainspace
Insensitive handling of the topic of Islam, including the use of stereotypes, on talk pages
The first two points are problematic in that they needlessly escalate the situation, greatly reducing the likelihood that an amicable consensus can be achieved though civil means, and overall strays from key Wikipedia policies that are put in place to facilitate productive collaboration. Furthermore, they can also be viewed as bitey towards newcomer editors who may become discouraged from future editing as a result of their experience on the receiving end of incivil remarks. The third point is also a valid concern raised, as inappropriate usage of objectionable content can potentially harm the reputation of Wikipedia or draw away readership, not to mention that numerous editors have raised their distaste for these images on the talk page, expressing that tamer imagery would be much more suitable for illustrating the software being demonstrated without alienating readers. The fourth point can be described as a distasteful and divisive use of harmful rhetoric that serves no benefit and only alienates specific groups of people; the remarks I made would have been no better than making an equivalent offensive statement based on racial, sexual, or national stereotypes.
With these concerns in mind, in future I will refrain from disruptively reverting edits over and over again, especially while there is active dialogue taking place aimed at addressing mainspace content concerns, and when participating in these discussions, I will refrain from escalating the situation through incivil rhetoric. I will take greater and more careful consideration into whether any additions into mainspace are productive and helplful in covering the topic at hand, and I certainly will refrain from clowning around with stereotypes again, religious or otherwise.
I have no intention of returning to AI-related topics, at least not any time soon, as I have significantly lost interest in machine learning; despite being one of very few editors who wrote AI-related content at the time, I can safely say that it was merely a passing fad-of-the-moment for me. I will most likely be expanding articles relating to linguistics, writing new articles about Japanese media franchises, updating mainspace content relating to the Ukraine War as the situation on the ground develops, and translating content from the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias that is absent on the English Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I think your responses are starting to address the issues but do not go into enough detail. I would want more definitive statements on what "incivil rhetoric" you will avoid, including what topics you will avoid discussing. I am also concerned when you say "refrain from disruptively reverting edits over and over again", as I do not think this goes far enough and recommend that you commit to WP:BRD and commit to WP:1RR. The statements also do not address how you should have discussed the addition of the controversial images, which initiated the ANI thread; your behaviour and how you can improve upon it also need to be explained. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:I would want more definitive statements on what "incivil rhetoric" you will avoid - Including, but not limited to, name-calling, passive-aggressiveness, slurs, hostile sarcasm, and remarks that specifically single out someone by race, religion, orientation or gender.
and recommend that you commit to WP:BRD and commit to WP:1RR - Sure, I can commit to a year of 1RR, and then seek further review before returning to 3RR, would that be acceptable?
The statements also do not address how you should have discussed the addition of the controversial images - Frankly, I should have dropped the issue back in September 2022 when Colin M first raised these concerns; pressing onwards into December 2022 in spite of multiple editors raising objections was an inappropriate move on my part, and there's no explanation for it that'll make it justifiable. At the time, there were few contributors who knew what they were doing when running SD and its derivative models, so I had the foolish thought to ignore community concerns and pretended that WP:CONSENSUS-building wasn't needed - call it an SME's stubbornness, I guess? At any rate, this entire saga has been a learning experience for me, and has taught me that excessive pride will lead me to make questionable decisions that'll bite me back sometime, and indeed it has; taking on a more humble approach to editing, regardless if it's a topic that I'm very familiar with or relatively unfamiliar with, would be the baseline for changing my approach to these things. Encountering disagreements is only natural, and I should have seeked to find common ground or engage a wider collection of editors for input, but instead I chose to resort to personal attacks (among other things) instead, actions which I can confidently attribute to hubris and the silly assumption that there'd be no consequences laid against someone who's authored 48% of the article prose as of the 31 July 2023 revision. In short, curbing my ego would be the primary avenue of changing my behaviour on Wikipedia -- or at least, that's how I see it. Of course, I could be interpreting this all completely wrong, so I'm keen to hear out any alternative theories as to why I behaved this way. --benlisquareT•C•E07:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and then seek further review before returning to 3RR" the further review will either be a review from another admin of your conduct, or asking the community for input on WP:ANI.
In regards to the images, I want to specifically address their content. Why were those images not appropriate for that article and, besides seeking consensus, what should you have done instead when editors objected to the images? Z1720 (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't appropriate because "WP:NOTCENSORED" does not mean "WP:BEASSHOCKINGASPOSSIBLE", and for an article about ML software, there could have been dozens of more suitable options to use as examples, that would not be sexually explicit as the ones chosen. To the typical reader, there would have been less educational benefit, and more chance to cause offence or distaste, to use these images compared to using essentially any other genre of ML artwork (or even the absence of an image altogether). WP:NOTCENSORED would have applied to an article that specifically fell within a raunchy or controversial topic, however Stable Diffusion fell into none of these categories, so my insistence on those images was obtuse and disruptive. Following the first few objections in September 2022, I should have discussed options for more SFW alternatives that are appropriate for use, and taken in the feedback given that any example images used should not further perpetuate WP:SYSTEMIC. Alternatively, if there was no agreement to be reached for whatever reason, I should have simply conceded to there being no image present. --benlisquareT•C•E14:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Z1720. I have reviewed the discussion from last December to refresh my memory, and I must say that I still find both the images in question and this editor's behavior when challenged to be exceptionally distasteful and disruptive, to no good end. I think that it should be made clear to Benlisquare that any further conduct remotely like that will lead to much swifter sanctions. But, in the spirit of offering one last chance, I will not oppose unblocking. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benlisquare, if unblocked I will impose the conditions listed below. Some of these I think you already agreed to, but I want to make sure this information is clear:
You will be topic banned from editing about artificial intellegence.
Any battleground behaviour will be considered immediate grounds to reinstitute the block. I will support an admin reinstituting a block for this reason without warning.
You will be barred from adding any images that could remotely be considered sensational to Wikipedia. If in doubt, ask on the article's talk page if the image should be in the article.
Z1720, I endorse these conditions you have written, which place clear boundaries on Benlisquare that if adhered to, should make it possible for the editor to return to making productive contributions to the encyclopedia. I encourage Benlisquare to refrain from boundary testing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accept condition 1.
I accept condition 2.
I accept condition 3, but would like to ask for a few clarifications, if you don't mind. Firstly, in the event where the article has a typically low average viewcount and the talk page is as good as deserted, would a viable alternative be to discuss with an uninvolved admin or a WikiProject noticeboard instead? Secondly, I'm assuming this condition would be specific to the English Wikipedia, correct? I am of good community standing on the Chinese Wikipedia, and it would be somewhat confusing to other zhwiki editors if I were to ask for the input of others on the talk page to, for example, add WP:NFCC book covers to the infoboxes of danmei novels.
If you have any questions about an image, and a message on the talk page does not receive a response, then you can ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK. However, if you are concerned that an image might be too sensational, then you probably shouldn't add it anyways. If you are constantly asking opinions about sensational images, then you are taking up precious time from other editors, and competence is required for editors. As for Chinese Wikipedia, they are their own organisation with their own rules. These conditions are only for articles on English Wikipeida written in English. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Benlisquare, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Actualcpscm, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Otomate, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otomate.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Actualcpscm}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sichuanese Pinyin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Thanks for uploading File:PSP-DJMaxPortableCE-FrontCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Hinomoto Oniko.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
中华人民共和国大陆地区。而中文维基百科的主要使用者除了来自
香港、
澳门和
台湾地区，还有一部分来自
Malaysia(马来西亚)以及
Singapore(新加坡)。所以中文维基百科的使用者很广，比搜搜百科、百度百科和互动百科广。
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive.
Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Takogo kak Putin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
