User talk:Kowal2701

Recent comment

I re-read this [1] and realized it was flippant. I'm sorry. I am feeling down about the future of the project because this is now so hard to detect. I'm also constantly interacting with LLMs at work and it doesn't feel sustainable anymore to spend my time here doing the same. It was fine in mid-2025 when the models were basically toys. But the capabilities are now frighteningly good and are going to displace a lot of people. I hope you're holding up alright NicheSports (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, I’m also pessimistic ngl. Totally understandable if you want to take a break from this stuff, I didn’t see your comment as flippant and obv always value the work you do. Something that’s given me a bit of hope is that we seem to be getting decent support from the WMF on this front. See this comment and the ones after it. Basically, there’s an edit notice that pops up when a user publishes content that has AI signs, and separately there’s a tool in the works that flags WP:V failures (also, at the annual plan there’s lots of people worried about AI, which means it’ll get more resources thrown at it). You may want to get in touch with PPelberg (WMF) (who’s leading stuff). This may be because I’m in Europe, but I remain naively hopeful the irresponsibility of the tools will be addressed with regulation that necessitates 'watermarks', the negative impact on the education system is just too great. The cultural backlash seems inevitable, but idk. This is dumb but I’ve also reached out to the BBC about doing a piece on WP and the challenges it's facing, they’ll probably ignore it (like they do all my complaints!) but worth a shot Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Helpful links, thanks. We will see. I think I will focus on more human parts of the project (GA reviews?) for the time being. Hopefully will still see you around NicheSports (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah good idea, GARs are good (esp. for honing content skills), something like WP:DRN looks rewarding (though draining, idk how Robert does it), mentorships as well, there’s lots more human stuff like that. Will defo see you around regardless, I’m far too active at noticeboards and the like, get bored writing sometimes lol Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This may be because I’m in Europe, but I remain naively hopeful the irresponsibility of the tools will be addressed with regulation that necessitates 'watermarks'

I am in Europe too, and this is what I am hoping for but unfortunately I am not hopeful about it. Like NicheSports, I am having this stuff shoved down my throat at work, which I am less than enthusiastic about. Despite being in Europe, I effectively work in the US. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701: in case you missed it:

• WT:AIC#c-Gurkubondinn-20260309134200-Lectonar-20260309131000

Personally I think that we should try to go for something more like thy have over at dewiki, rather than allowing too many carveouts. But that is just my personal opinion, which is why I am writing this here and not there. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/March 2026 proposal is pretty much done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I am just not a huge fan of the part [e]ditors are permitted to use LLMs to refine their own writing, but it would not stop me from supporting this proposal. I kind of understand why it has been included though, and I need to read the dewiki proposal again more carefully (it might have something similar). My point in all of the previous proposals has always been that we need something now, which we can then continue to build on. And this would be a major improvement it if is accepted, that is for sure. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I really don't like that either, but it seems necessary if it's to gain consensus Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

We always have to give berth for the mythical editor that is out there somewhere and using LLM "the correct way". My contention is that if someone is doing that, nobody would ever clock that editor as using an LLM in the first place. And they would be typing their own submissions themselves, not copy/pasting output from an LLM or chatbot. But aye, needed to gain consensus. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, have said the same elsewhere. I think that bit is more for students and people who already integrate some AI into their 'workflow' (hate that word), people who lack the competence to do it can just catch a WP:CIR block. I'll add that caution is "strongly" advised Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I tried to address the ambiguity while retaining the refinement concept. Can you guys take a look? Also, we should ask someone to close WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/RfC_LLMCOMM_guideline before this goes live... on mobile now but I can request a close later today if no one else gets to it first. NicheSports (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

have replied on talk. That RfC is listed at WP:CR, though we can ask certain people. I think it's fine since our proposal is on content, while this is on comms Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no rush, I was thinking of pinging a couple people to the WT:AIC discussion once we've got a solid mock-up, and then advertising that discussion at WP:VPP, before we start the RfC. Part of the reason the last one failed was because we rushed into it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for initiating btw NicheSports (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC Closure - Inclusion of Content Ethnic Groups Section

@Kowal2701 I need your support for closing an RfC North Africa with administrator support.

On the talk page, there have been a series of RfC to review proposed content modifications and proposed set of images.

I have opened my RfC for 4 weeks now since it was opened on 5th February. There seems to be strong support for the proposed content amendment with scope for adjustments in light of a vocal minority.

Nonetheless, the last vote made was two weeks ago on 12 February and I think the RfC has reached a natural close. However, I cannot close the RfC as the proponent and need an administrator to close the RfC and formalise the consensus position.

Could you support in finding an admin to close the RfC ? I'm looking to de-active my account permanently after these final round of RfCs so it will be appreciated if we could resolve this decisively.

Please find the RfC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Africa#Proposed_content_addition WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

WikiUser4020, you can list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 Thanks for the fast response and accessible link. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello

If you want to we can have a conversation about stuff where we both make an effort to be polite and constructive. But no more personal attacks (and I would appreciate it if you would apologize and retract them, now or after the conversation). Interested? If not just revert me. Polygnotus (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. I hope the following doesn't come off as rude, I'm trying to be direct. It's not so much that you were trolling me and voorts (though that's frustrating, and I'm sorry for venting), it's more the possibility that you could do it to someone already at the end of their tether, like you've got no idea what's going on in people's lives. Ik you just wanna have fun and I get life often doesn't deserve to be taken seriously/some people's reaction to serious situations is to see the absurdity, but there are other ways than purposely pissing people off for your own amusement. Like, it would've been disruptive in a regular discussion, let alone in a heated ANI thread with some of the site's most powerful users. It's important these guys get on, and imo it sped past the line for tongue in cheek. Re the script, ik you wrote the code, it's your choice and vision, but multiple people had raised legitimate concerns, even if you can't take them seriously at least pretend to and defer to them a bit. What worries me is that after the AE thread, your messages after receiving the warning made it seem like you didn't really understand what you did wrong? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am pretty weird (ask my wife) and English is not my native language. I also come from a different background than most people on enwiki (not just geographically or linguistically). So if someone doesn't believe that I mean what I say, and say what I mean, then it is near impossible for them to accurately guesstimate my real motivation/reasoning. That is not just a problem with weird people, but with communication via text in general. You can't see my face or hear my voice, so there is no intonation or facial expressions you can use to interpret my words correctly, so its pretty damn difficult. And of course there are quite a few people on Wikipedia that are on some kinda spectrum; while I am not many of the best Wikipedians are.

I'm trying to be direct. Please continue to be direct. I will do the same.

I did the user interaction analyser thingie and it looks like I missed a message you posted. It was probably on a todolist and then I forgot about it. And after reading this I kinda lost sympathy for you (hope you can imagine that).

As you can see over at User_talk:GreenLipstickLesbian/Archive_6#Template I had a pretty long conversation in which I talked about various ways to deal with the fact that templates are giant and ugly. I proposed quite a few things to reduce the problem. Quote: If you want to put the message in the most relevant place it would be below the References section header. But again, some people decided that this is the way it should be, and we haven't figured out a new system since then. and You guys got me defending the status quo as if I like it. In reality that template was created before I was born, and article message amboxes styling was decided without me.

From my POV it is pretty bad that if you post some obvious truisms that people just insult you because they assume you are sticking up for someone they disagree with. And kinda ironic in the context of people mentioning toxicity on Wikipedia. What you describe as a heated ANI thread with some of the site's most powerful users feels like a boring and pointless squabble between people who should know better to me.

I looked at some of your contributions, and you appear to be a goodfaith user. And my entire point was that people should be allowed to make mistakes and have bad days.

Please look at MOS:ORDER. Some people, I am not really sure who or why, decided that maintenance templates are supposed to be at that location in the article. Looking at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_1#Template:Duplicated_citations I see a small consensus that we can make an exception for this template (and put it below the References header).

So if you edit MOS:ORDER to say that this particular template should be below the References header, and you mention that discussion in the editsummary, then I can change the script and then we hope no one reverts you. Am I making sense? Polygnotus (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh and perhaps you should know that someone else shouted at me that the template MUST be at the top of the article and that I was an idiot for not following MOS:ORDER. So its one of those catch 22 damned if you do-type situations we all love so much. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

To see things in perspective I made User:Polygnotus/data/TemplateTransclusions. I had a quick look and it looks to me that there are quite a few templates that could be placed under the References section header (many of which have far more transclusions than the measly 195 {{Duplicated citations}} has), for example: {{Full citations needed}}, {{Ibid}}, {{Page numbers improve}}, {{Page numbers needed}}. So if you want to you could take a look at the 352 other templates in Category:Article_message_templates that could also be moved to below the References section header. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

you appear to be a goodfaith user, thanks lol. I know I got too hot-headed/BATTLEGROUND over pretty lame minutiae, but I felt how you dealt with mine and Bogazicili's concerns in the pump thread was disrespectful (obv that's relative to culture), and it didn't leave any constructive avenue to solve things. I think we're going to have to wait for that TfD discussion to be closed before citing it, though it's probably better to have a general discussion at VPI about such templates. I agree there's a strong argument for moving lots of others that aren't about content quality to the References section, though I'm probably not going to pursue this given how it's gone so far, and I know feck all about templates Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Fun facts about FAs....

(sorry, this felt waaay too off topic for the AN/I thread)

While perfection may be the goal, FAs are just articles - you can even send them to AfD! It sort of scares the closers a bit -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) (2nd nomination) -- but it's very much possible. If you're ever bored, you can see Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Meteorology and Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Sport and recreation for some interesting afd nominations/merges and subsequent delists. Alternatively, if you want to go outside the enWiki ecosystem, then I'd had to recommend you read about the Zhemao hoaxes. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

lol, that’s bizarre. Thanks for the links Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

I left a Thank You on the Talk page of Chaotic Enby for their work on WP:NEWLLM and they also said that you helped them write the guidelines so wanted to thank you too. Thank you! Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

If anything, Kowal played a bigger role than me in writing the guideline (and setting up the pre-RfC discussion), while I mostly took the lead when submitting the RfC itself! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Naw, it was a group effort, had input from like 10 people Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Kowal2701, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes!

A thanks felt a little too impersonal, but, re:[2] -- yep, I think this a good way of putting it. Thank you sooo much!! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

lol, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed decision

Hi Kowal2701, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maghreb PD discussion

Re [3], I think that's going a bit far from a response to the PD at this point and your initial idea about raising that elsewhere is probably better. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but I’ll probs just leave it, too much drama Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Provided no one else escalates, I’ll do a courtesy ping when the discussion's died and hopefully they self-correct for future Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Closing the AINB thread

Why was the thread closed? The discussion was not actually over. Several things were not addressed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Which things? It’s just people bickering, I’d say if there’s something needs ironing out, take it to user talk, nothing remotely constructive will come from that thread Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff, practically everyone (at least hundreds of people), highly values the work you personally do (though ik it isn’t made clear often enough), please don’t focus on the one or two people who don’t know what they’re talking about and may have just had a bad day Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A recent comment of yours

I was interested to see you describe Abstract Wikipedia as a brewing scandal in the recent WP:COMMTECHGATE Village Pump thread. I agree, I have quite some trepidation about how it's going to be introduced to us all. And about the scope, especially after watching the video on the Wikifunctions front page.

On an unrelated note, I enjoyed reading your essays, thanks for writing them. GanzKnusper (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @GanzKnusper for the kind words. Yeah, I get the impression that’s a very common view. We’ll see, I guess. Communities got no say on whether to start development, and there’s no way for us to stop it so :/ Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)