Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Pencilo is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
User:Hteiktinhein has reverted my edits twice, prompting me to start this discussion here. The subject, Pencilo, is a controversial and active Facebook influencer with millions of followers. While she writes posts against the Myanmar junta and in favor of the NUG, her followers typically shut down opposing voices, leaving little to no room for discussion (as evidenced by the lack of critical comments under her posts). Given the serious risk of life-threatening danger or severe online bullying for anyone who criticizes her, whether they are pro-junta or pro-resistance and whether they are online or in person in Myanmar, I am using this non-account to initiate this discussion. ~2025-36093-27 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@~2025-36093-27 Well, I'm currently busy, and this vandalism dispute has taken too much of my time. Please note that my time is valuable, and I prefer to focus on article creation rather than personal-attack conflicts.
For the first source you added, I’m fine with it since it supports the content. However, the second source cannot be used because it comes from YouTube. While Wikipedia does accept YouTube in limited situations—such as when the channel belongs to a verified media outlet with editorial oversight—the channel you cited is user-generated, gossipy, and appears to use CapCut-style editing. So it is not reliable.
Regarding the NP source, it is a military-backed outlet. It is unsuitable for supporting content about an anti-junta activist. NP may be acceptable for military-related topics, but not for contentious claims about people the outlet opposes. Burmese Wikipedia editors have always treated NP with caution and use it only on a case-by-case basis.
You added a controversial section supported only by an NP reference and an unreliable YouTube video, which is not sufficient for inclusion. When material about living persons is removed due to good-faith BLP concerns, anyone wishing to restore it must ensure full compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. If restoration is attempted without significant changes, consensus must be obtained first. See — Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoration.
Furthermore, per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, the responsibility is on the editor adding the material to prove verifiability. Otherwise, removed material should remain out of the article, even if it is not strictly a biography.
I appreciate your interest in improving the article. Even though I personally don’t like Pencilo, as a Wikipedia editor I would not dare to add one-sided or poorly sourced information like you. I don’t think I can handle this dispute alone, so I will ping other Burmese Wikipedia editors for assistance: @EmeraldRange and @Ninjastrikers. (I won’t ping the respected editor User:Hybernator to avoid unnecessary interruption.) Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks pretty clear cut that you added unsubstantiated information. In fact, when I saw this notification I thought that you would be attempting to remove information to protect Pencilo. Please see WP:BLP as Hein has already pointed out. The process on wikipedia for any living persons is that if you add unreliable materials and another editor removes it with good intentions, you should discuss the changes you want to make on here and resolve it. So, please reply on here with a more reliably sourced version of what you want to change only using the reliable sources.
I agree with Hein's assessments of your sources. Most of them are not reliable- especially using YouTube videos. NP News can be used in some of these cases to provide the junta's perspective. But overall your edits do not meet standards of neutrality (WP:NPOV). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
In assessing source reliability, it is valid to question YouTube links. However, the edit also cites material indicating that the subject is a social-media influencer (per RFA) and publicly supported Aung San Suu Kyi’s defense in the Rohingya genocide case (per Mizzima or DVB). Although NP News is pro-junta, it is a registered Myanmar news agency, and given the post-2021 media polarization, where most independent outlets now operate in exile, with BBC Burmese as an exception, certain verifiable information is available only through such sources. The problem of me using unreliable links was that this person was part of previously the secret operation and they probably have the power to manipulate online presence regarding polarized information which resulted in me using unreliable Youtube links. As Maria Ressa has noted, “online violence is real-world violence,” underscoring the need for careful evaluation rather than blanket removal. Many existing claims in the article even before my edits lack solid citations and weak sources (e.g., Facebook). Each of my edits can be edited or removed per WP:RS and WP:V, but reverting all content wholesale appears excessive and inconsistent with WP:EDITWAR and WP:PRESERVE, which encourage improving rather than deleting verifiable material. I therefore request that the restrictions on my editing be removed. ~2025-36093-27 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, reverting all content when contested or poorly source is the policy for WP:BLP specific articles to prevent libel and legal issues for Wikipedia.
You should, as I mentioned before, reply with specific changes you want to make with sources for each change. Your edit as a whole is not fit to Wikipedia standards. For example, mentioning that she is also a social media influencer per the RFA source would be a valid edit. But most of the rest of it is not. You cannot use user-generated youtube links by claiming there is a secret cabal controlling sources everyone else considers reliable. If you want to challenge certains parts of the existing article for having unreliable sources, you are free to do so. The article is not perfect- the facebook link that is used to cite the fact about South Korean presidential support is probably not valid. But now that we have entered a contested BLP mode, you have the onus to bring these things up specifically and the community can approve them if they follow WP:RS. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aston305 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)