User talk:The-Pope

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello The-Pope,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello The-Pope,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello The-Pope,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

AFL stats bot account

Hi. Just reaching out after reading the talk page post at Talk:Mason Cox regarding the AFL stats bot account. I'm considering taking it to WP:ANI. It's ridiculous that it's even a thing to have to update every single AFL players infobox and stats table after every round. Wikipedia does not need to be the source of truth for weekly stats – a simple end of season update would suffice, like many other sports projects do. What's your thoughts? DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind the concept of auto updating, but we don't need it policing every article every 20 mins like it apparently does. A once a week update once AFL Tables is updated. Maybe once a month or year for non-current players. I'm anti the stats table (kicks, marks etc) completely, but that ship seems to have sailed. I just want it done probably, something he seems to not comprehend. The-Pope (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello The-Pope:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

LLMPRVOBJ

Hey there. I see that you have removed LLMPROD tags without following LLMPRVOBJ, saying that you will do it later. But LLMPRVOBJ needs to be followed in order to remove the LLMPROD tag, otherwise you are creating a burden on others to re-sift through everything and check if it has happened yet. The purpose of LLMPROD is to be a tool to prevent LLM generated material from lying around in article space. If you want to look through these articles later, then you should userfy them (which gets them out of article space, just make sure to that they are tagged with {{AI-generated}} tags that point to the relevant filings). ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:IAR. I've done half. I'll do the rest. It's been there for months, very little I've found from this editor, if any, has been wrong. It will be ok to last another week. You blindly reverting ones i did check is vandalism. Don't do that again. The-Pope (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Checking is not enough, you need to follow LLMPRVOBJ. And please don't cast aspersions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not yet fluent in wikilawyer, I only speak English. When I edited with an edit summary similar to "checked and cleaned up" I meant that "I've fully assumed responsibility for all content and its sources have been closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines.". Looking at the list of 12 AFL articles tagged in this batch, I've fully checked 3, redirected 2, happy for 1 to be deleted, partially checked 1 and want another week for it and the other 5. If you must comply with ever rule, then userfy or draftify. As I said above, other than flowery language used, I haven't found any errors, fake refs or hallucinations so far from this user, so this is incredibly low risk stuff. The-Pope (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to wikilayer or argue you need to find someone else to bark at. I only participate in good faith discussions. I already attempted to explain this to you once, but you responded the way that you did. Since you seem to be more open to talking now, I can try again.

You should think of this more like the copyvio presumed deletions and less like regular PRODs or notability concerns. By "taking responsibility", you are more or less inserting LLM-generated text yourself which is contrary to the NOLLM guideline. People seem to misunderstand this part of LLMPROD rather often (and I am not convinced that this language should have been included at all so don't try to get me to somehow justify it). The gist of how it works is that all generated text needs to be removed (excluding things like section headings and etc that don't really lend much meaning to the article). Redirecting is good, stubification is often done. This also has noting to do with "low risk" (which these aren't because they are BLPs, so that would be a moot point anyway).

The timeframe that was settled on (by consensus) for LLMPRODs were 5 days (a deadline), and userfication (or draftification, though userfication is preferred) added as a way for users that want more time to TNT and rewrite ("disables" the deadline). Which is what you want, so that is what you should do. If you continue to refuse to follow LLMPRVOBJ, then you are forcing others to take on the extra work of checking these articles to wait for LLMPRVOBJ to be done (for how long? no idea), when they have already invested the time in identification and cleanup (which is exponentially larger than the time that went into creating these).

Anothet thing that you should keep in mind is that there is nothing preventing you from recreating articles that have been LLMPROD deleted (as long as you don't use an LLM of course). Because you basically need to TNT anyway, there isn't even much lost and you can even request a REFUND of the deleted copy. But seriously, just move them into your userspace (like LLLMPRVOBJ says you should)... That way you get to do what you want to do without creating an extra tasks for other people. I have no idea why this has to be a problem. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

IAR is a policy. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". NOLLM is a guideline, which says LLM generated content is banned as it often violates core editing policies. That's what I'm checking against. NPV, V & NOR. The core policies. I don't care who wrote the words as long as they comply with those policies after being checked by a human. That's as per WP:AICGUIDE: "Ensure that the article text accurately summarizes the remaining cited sources in an encyclopedic tone." It doesn't say all text must be deleted.

I'm improving the project, as I've done for the past 20 years. Other than this discussion, there are no extra tasks for anyone else. I'm just ignoring the 5 day rule. Because checking 12 articles in that time was too much to do it properly. The-Pope (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The operative words there are "improve the project", leaving LLM-generated BLP articles in mainspace is the opposite of that (BLP is also "just a guideline", but you should know well enough that violating it is not advisable). Being cooperative is also a core principle of the project, and if you are going to wikilawyer (please do that at someone else like I have already asked you to) about the pecking order of shortcuts; AICGUIDE is an informational guide and NOLLM is a guideline (and YESNOLLM is an explanatory essay that explains how you are in fact incorrect). You logic also does not check out, LLMPRVOBJ does not prevent you from improving anything, it only tells you how you are supposed to do it. You wanted more than five days to TNT some LLM-generated BLP articles. LLMPRVOBJ tells you that then you should userfy them. I have no idea why you think that wikilawyering makes more sense than just doing what you are supposed to. But I believe that I have thoroughly explained this to you by now, and that you can be considered fully informed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 06:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)