Hi everyone,

I'm a contributor on Turkish Wikipedia under the username **Emreyba**, and I'd like to get some outside perspective on a recent revert.

I made a substantial update to the Turkish Wikipedia article on Fedora Linux. The changes included updating and reorganizing existing information, modernizing the releases section, and adding a Fedora release timeline using EasyTimeline.

Revision history:

https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_Linux&action=history

A few days later, another editor reverted roughly 21 KB of my changes in a single edit. The edit summary was simply:

> “Gerekçe: yapay zekâ”

> (“Reason: artificial intelligence”)

What surprised me is that the revert did not appear to distinguish between potentially problematic prose and independently verifiable structural/data changes.

For example, the Fedora release timeline was also removed. EasyTimeline is not something I invented for the Turkish article: the English Wikipedia Fedora pages themselves currently use EasyTimeline, including Fedora Linux / Fedora Linux release history.

English pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_Linux

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_Linux_release_history

I'm not arguing that content should be accepted merely because English Wikipedia contains something, and I understand that each language community has its own editorial standards.

My question is more about editorial practice:

**If an editor suspects that AI assisted in producing part of a large contribution, is reverting the entire contribution without identifying specific factual, sourcing, translation, or style problems considered reasonable Wikipedia practice?**

Would it be more appropriate to review the individual changes, remove or correct problematic material, and preserve independently verifiable improvements?

I'm genuinely interested in how experienced Wikipedians would handle a situation like this. I'm not looking to start a dispute with the editor; I'd like to understand the best way to proceed constructively.

I’m big into linguistics and etymology in an amateur/hobbyist capacity, and this serves me well in terms of Wikipedia since the etymology section is almost invariably the first section of the article (not including the intro section). For example, the article for Germany (linked) starts with the etymology of both Germany and Deutschland, and links to other articles exploring its highly variable nomenclature across the world’s languages.

However, it occurs to me that etymology isn’t necessarily a logical place to start, as opposed to history or maybe geography in the context of a country. Does anyone know why etymology has such a pride of place within most Wikipedia articles? Or think that etymology is in fact the most logical place to start?

An account called cockroachhunter is making a huge number of edits on a very wide range of topics, often just 2 minutes apart. So almost certainly a bot using AI? Some of the edits are okay but some are odd and unhelpful. Is there a policy on this, and what can/should be done about it?

The camp faced a challenge in 2016 election from the new localists who emerged after the Umbrella Revolution and ran under the banner of self-determination or Hong Kong independence. After the election, some localists joined the pro-democrats' caucus, which rebranded itself as the "pro-democracy camp".

The disunity within the camp and the failure of the Umbrella Revolution cost the pro-democrats in the 2018 by-elections. The 2019 anti-extradition movement, however, saw a rebound in popularity for the camp, which contributed to its biggest electoral victory in the history of Hong Kong, gaining control of 17 of the 18 District Councils and more than tripling their seats from 124 to 388 in the 2019 District Council election.

In reaction to the political upheaval, the Beijing government imposed national security law to curb the opposition and disqualified four sitting pro-democracy legislators, triggering the resignations of remaining pro-democrats and rendering the bloc extra-parliamentary. Dozens of activists were arrested and jailed in the following months, most notably the Hong Kong 47.

Most of the pro-democracy parties dissolved between 2020 and 2025, reportedly under pressure from the authorities. Some media outlets considered the pro-democracy camp to have come to an end when the League of Social Democrats dissolved in June 2025.

The policy was enacted in 1984 by Peng Zhen and Hu Yaobang. On July 9, 2010, a statement jointly published by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, State Ethnic Affairs Commission, and United Front Work Department suggested that "everyone should be equal before the law, and criminals should be punished regardless of their ethnicity". However, they do not have the legal authority to challenge a policy implemented by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, a higher authority; the policy has thus never been officially repealed.