Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed

• Sorted
• NPP Browser

• Easy
• Reports

Reviewers

• Resources
• School
• Top

Curation tool
SuggestionsCoordination

• Talk
• Awards
• Newsletter

• May 2026 backlog drive

NPP backlog

Articles

15181 ↑124

Oldest article

10 years old

Redirects

37037

Oldest redirect

6 months old

Article reviews

1522

Redirect reviews

3090

• There is a very large articles backlog
• The articles backlog is growing very rapidly (↑1004 since last week)
• There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of June 01, 2026

Am I crazy or are the majority of new articles LLM-assisted?

Articles by newish editors are too perfect nowadays. Here are some examples: Theo Angelis, Golden Landmark Shopping Complex, Como Beach, Euposaurus. I always have typos when I write long articles but most new articles never have any. Their references are always formatted perfectly as well. I haven't seen a bare URL in forever. To prove my point about the aforementioned Theo Angelis article, I went to a similar Washington state judge article: Oscar Raymond Holcomb (created in 2017). I found a typo pretty quickly: "where he lived for the next for 15 years". I also went to the judge right before Angeles in the succession box, Barbara Madsen, and found bare URLs. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's depressing. Makes it really hard to check the articles. I've been finding that quite a few of them are so close paraphrases of the cited sources that they should probably be reported as copyvio, which is a huge pain to do. I just AfD'ed this HUGE bundle of AI-generated articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditionsschifferschein. And here is a discussion about whether close paraphrasing should be an additional criteria for G15: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Add criteria to G15: Close paraphrase of source. Lijil (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's sad. I think Claude is getting much better with writing articles, whereas ChatGPT was very easy to spot. It's also very sad because (for example) Theo Angelis clearly meets notability guidelines (I was actually looking into his 2026 re-election campaign just a few days ago and was surprised not to see an article), and the page has no glaring errors, but Wikipedia losing the human touch. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

As if on cue, I get this stinking pile of robo-faeces.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yikes, that's awful. Are new editors getting clear notifications that AI-generated content is not accepted? Or do they know and they just don't care? Lijil (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No, and yes. Well or they insist that their LLM is good and doesn't have hallucinations, and insist we check every single line they ever wrote. I've been doing some RCP AI spot checks and the rate appears to average out at between 3 to 6 obvious (like, blindingly obvious) AI edits per hour. Fermiboson (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are getting guidance or not. A lot of people have banner blindness anyway. Every BLP has a big red banner in the edit window, but most people don't even notice it (myself included). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Are new editors getting clear notifications that AI-generated content is not accepted...

A question related to this.

First, some context: T420258 describes an LLM-specific version of Paste Check. The idea being when we detect people pasting content from an LLM into the viusal editor, we'd surface an Edit Check that would 1) inform people of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models, 2) require people to explicitly indicate whether they did or did not use an LLM to generate the content they're pasting, and 3) in the background, tag edits in which this Check was activated.

A resulting question: how (if at all) can you see an intervention of this sort being helpful? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This would be super helpful! We know from the other tests that the intrusion of edit check makes a measurable impact. Even if it can only detect half of the big LLMs, it should make an impact. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF), the sooner this comes out the better. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Femke + @Asilvering: noted! You can expect me to be back in touch about this in the next ~2 weeks. The Editing Team is exploring what an initial proof of concept could look like and the level of effort involved to implement it. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Femke+ @Asilvering: Okay. I'm back with an update: an initial version of an LLM-specific iteration of Paste Check is available for you all to try. See testing instructions below.

Before that: while we are eager to hear any and all questions/ideas this exploration brings up for you, we are especially interested in learning:

1. What options do you think should appear in the survey that appears within the Check when people elect to Keep the text they're pasting?
2. What en.wiki policy/guideline do you think should be linked within this Check? E.g. WP:G15?
3. What facet(s) of the Check do you think would need to be configurable on a per wiki basis? E.g. Account state(s) the Check should apply to, sections the Check should not activate within, whether the Check should activate on quoted content, minimum amount of characters someone needs to have pasted for the Check to show, etc.

Last thing, if there are pages/people who you think would be excited to try this out/offer feedback, I hope you will let me know and/or share it with them directly!

How to try LLM Paste Check

1. Visit https://564a50573d.catalyst.wmcloud.org/wiki/Regent's_Park?veaction=edit&ecenable=1 on desktop or mobile
2. Copy at least one full paragraph of text from the web interface of ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini
3. Paste the text you copied in "2." into the edit session you started in "1."
4. ✅ Notice the Potential AI-generated content Check appear

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic that you're making fast progress, as AI slop is really starting to overwhelm patrollers. (1) I think these should maybe align with the two exceptions in WP:LLM: That is, "This is a manually checked translation", "I have verified this is an accurate copyedit" and "None of the above". (2) In terms of the guideline to cite, WP:LLM is better than G15. G15 is only about the worst of the worst. (3) those configuration options seem sensible. In practice, I think we would configure which people this applies to and which sections this applies to (all of them?). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

For articles whose subjects are clearly notable, an alternative to draftifying is always to stubify. ​I feel like that option isn't given adequate consideration in guidelines like WP:NPP. lp0 on fire () 12:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

How would you go about doing that? I can foresee the edit getting reverted for removing sourced info. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete the entire slop and replace with one liner and a hatnote to expand content that isn't LLM generated ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No need for the hatnote; just temove it outright. As for not getting reverted, "removal of sourced content" isn't a reason to revert, and if the alternative is outright deletion there's nothing wrong with turning it into a microstub. lp0 on fire () 13:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a reason I've often seen given when reverting vandalism or similar. I guess if "LLM generated" was added to the text at WP:STUBBIFY we could link to that in the edit summary as explanation. Orange sticker (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, if a recent changes patroller is reverting valid stubifications by new page reviewers on the grounds that they removed sourced content, they probably shouldn't be patrolling recent changes. lp0 on fire () 14:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I accidentally clicked "send" without finishing this, but oh well. lp0 on fire () 16:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I just stubified an article that seems notable but the information wasn't supported by the inline citations, along with other signs of LLM. What now? Mark as reviewed? Still seems unsatisfactory: Disques Flèche. Orange sticker (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Re your earlier "It's a reason I've often seen given when reverting vandalism", the reason I usually give is that I'm reverting an unexplained removal of sourced information. If the explanation that it is removal of AI slop were given in the edit summary, I would not revert it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if a caution about LLM should be added to the standard Welcome texts? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

We need more than that. When pressing submit on a new article, the creator should be taken to a page where they tick a box stating "I have not used a Large Language Model in the creation of this article. I accept that if evidence emerges that this article includes text from a Large Language Model, the article will be deleted and I may be banned from English Wikipedia."Boynamedsue (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

We could do that, although that would require a wider concensus and it sounds a bit aggressive to me.

I have started a discussion on adding LLM the welcome templates at the welcome talk page, please feel free to chip in there. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if we can modify the local lp0 on fire () 17:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I love this idea. Maybe it only happens the first X times someone edits. Lijil (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise how bad my internet was. What I meant to say here was I wonder if we could modify the local message for mw:Edit check/Paste Check to include an AI warning. lp0 on fire () 20:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to have already been done: see MediaWiki:Editcheck-copyvio-description. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

A checkbox was brought up during one of the RfCs on AI policy, and there was some opposition to it because some editors thought it would encourage people to use AI or give the impression it was permitted. Of course things have changed since then so it may be worth revisiting. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

There needs to be a coordinated approach across sections. I have just draftified the last 3 creations of the user who pressed send on AI's article Draft:Ideology of the Confederate States of America. This is probably about the 30th I've done for this reason in the three weeks I've been an NPP. There's an avalanche of this crap. As of now, do we have a local consensus in favour of stubifying all AI-generated articles? And what happens when the users kick off?Boynamedsue (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean stubbifying just the ones where the subject is likely notable? I'd be interested in applying that approach and seeing how it goes. Orange sticker (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

There is very strong consensus against writing with LLMs, which implicitly equates to consensus in favour of removing that content. If the topic isn't obviously notable, it's usually uleasi lp0 on fire () 16:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Sound. That makes sense.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I stubbify when the subject is clearly notable as demonstrated by the references. The exception - regardless of notability - is prolific AI contributors: editors repeatedly pushing out slop despite warnings. In that case, I'm concerned they'll just restore the content, and I don't want to end up feeling obligated to babysit the page. For new users, though, I've had pretty good luck with stubbifying. I try to politely explain the AI signs I'm seeing and frame it around our shared goal of marking the article as patrolled for mainspace. The handful of times I've done this it's gone well. Zzz plant (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

In case of prolific AI editors who will just restore the content, it's probably better just to take them to ANI (or just ping {{@AINBA}} at WP:AINB) and keep the stub. Even if you only keep a line, removing content because of what someone might do to it doesn't feel right; even in an extreme case protection would still be preferable to outright removal. lp0 on fire () 16:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Draftify may be safer than WP:TNT, because then the article doesn't get marked as reviewed. TNT is also valid, but reviewers should probably also watchlist it to make sure the slop isn't put back as soon as you mark the article as reviewed.

Note that when someone undo's one of your edits, the only reason you get a ping is that your username is linked in the default edit summary. If that edit summary is changed, or the person just copy pastes the old revision text back in, you will get no notification.

Above it is mentioned that some recent changes patrollers revert TNTs. That seems odd. Make sure to use a clear edit summary to help with this. Something like: "WP:TNT this article due to WP:LLM use", or even simply "WP:NOLLM". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

We also shouldn't limit this to new users. I have seen countless inactive accounts come back to make these AI articles. – The Grid (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a kernel of truth to this, though, in that one of the main vectors of AI-generated content and rewrites is Newcomer Tasks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

If you're sure about this, then perhaps we should look into adding some "no AI" warning text to the Newcomer Tasks interface. Can you provide a URL to a newcomer task? I'll use it to poke around and see how easy/hard it would be to do this. (Might be as easy as editing a page in the MediaWiki namespace.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Believe me, we've tried, unfortunately this appears to require WMF to do it, and, well.... Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if the percentage was high -- I keep thinking about that New York Magazine article that claimed over 90% of students had already used ChatGPT for stuff by January 2023 (i.e., only a few months after its release).

I don't have an actual sense of proportion since I don't do new page patrolling (no bandwidth or interest, sorry), and it's hard to get an accurate sense of the proportion of older edits since things get deleted/reverted. But based on what I have seen, this has been an issue since early 2023, and really started to snowball in mid-2024 (when GPT-4o came out), and by 2025 was an avalanche. In other words, there was just as much AI stuff a year ago, it just was not being detected despite being obvious in retrospect.

I don't think newer AI output is undetectable, especially if you've seen a lot of it. (Based on these examples newer Claude models are the only ones that sound that much different from other LLMs, including GPT-5. However, I suspect most people use GPT-5.) But it's harder to explain to people why it's detectable, in the same way that it's hard to explain anything where you've seen 10,000 examples and they've only seen one. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been (am currently) doing RC monitoring for obvious AI edit summaries in order to get a sense of the rate at which obvious, lazy copy-paste AI edits are coming in. The rate currently varies between one per 3 minutes to one per 15. Fermiboson (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

extremely believable, unfortunately Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's possible with VisualEditor to create rich references easily nowadays, so a new editor being able to create references perfectly is not unusual at all (you can tell other than looking at the Tags is that the ref names are usually ref name ":0"> or similar). Also some editors like to draft in their sandbox and then copy and paste into the mainspace, it's what happened for the Golden Landmark Shopping Complex and Euposaurus articles, so in those cases a large creation edit is not unusual. Raw LLM output is still very detectable, to confirm this I asked Sonnet 4.6 to generate me a Wikipedia article, and the output is immediately obvious that it is LLM generated. Finally, instead of looking at typos as a sign of human editing, I'd look at things that the average Wikipedia article has, for example categories, short description, or an infobox. If the editor didn't add those and the article otherwise looks good that could suggest human writing, as LLM knows very well the average format and will almost always include those if you ask it to generate an article (even if it does so incorrectly like with DOA categories). Jumpytoo Talk 01:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I support default stubbing.★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. If there's a potentially valid (WP:N) article, it makes little sense to ostensibly banish the subject because of the taint of LLM. It seems more productive to strip out the LLM-chaff and keep a clean stub (e.g., I'm not likely to go back and re-create this, but in my view, as the subject appears notable and is mentioned elsewhere in our pages, it would have been worth preserving as a stub). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Redirect Backlog

My goal with this discussion is to get a general impression on how others feel, not already change anything. I was recently thinking about the length of our backlog, specifically the giant redirect backlog and more sustainable solutions. The Wikipedia:RWHITELIST caught my attention. My main two questions were, how many redirects in the queue were created by New Page Patrollers and how often do articles created by NPP end up at RFD? I'd think that given the experience we expect of NPPs and the rather simplistic nature of redirecs that we could be trusted with creating redirects without additional scrutiny. Important I'd not be proposing to autopatrol all of us, only redirect creations could be affected. Happy to hear your thoughts ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a look at WP:RFD#DELETE to see if any of the problems were likely to be caused by mistake / honest difference of opinion, and the only obvious one (to me) was number 10, "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." The other reasons were either broadly technical, or else cleaning up possible mischief. Assuming NPP reviewers are not disruptive, even on bad days, I therefore don't have a problem with the suggestion. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep, this sounds like a decent idea. Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say only Rosguill has more experience reviewing redirects and managing WP:RWHITELIST than I do, but speaking based on my experience, I'm not a fan of this idea, and I don't think it would have much of an impact. NPPers are often focused on articles, and many of them aren't page movers, but newer NPPers and those who are rusty have, in the past, created redirects from moves that I've needed to revert enough times to make me dislike this idea. I've also had to talk to NPPers over the years about what constitutes a proper redirect, and I don't think the user group is a suitable exception.

With that said, it could make sense to run a quarry query for NPPers who are not autopatrolled but have created over 100 redirects, then run that against the list of RAL users to see if there are some suggestions that can be made. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, those experiences are definitely worth considering, especially since I haven't had the chance to make them since I am rather new. With you touching the subjects of PM's, would you be open to RWHITELIST them? Or are there not considered caveats as well? Squawk7700 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Redirects created as the result of page moves, by page movers, are already automatically patrolled @Squawk7700, while page movers themselves are not. I've seen some PMs create some bad redirects, and they may be great about moving pages upon request, or fixing some small issues, but sometimes creating whole new redirects, they may not be the best at. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know... How dumb of me, well that sorts that as well, disregard the previous comment. Squawk7700 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It does seem as if the redirect autopatrol list is pretty underpopulated in general. The last application was 3+ months ago, while WP:PERM/AP itself gets multiple applications every week. ScalarFactor (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you'd be surprised how many people make a lot of flawless redirects that aren't already on the RAL or autopatrolled. Sometimes there's so few redirect creations, such as one or two a month over the course of 5+ years, that we don't even notice people reaching the level to qualify for RAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Would it make sense to try "advertising" it a bit more? The header on WP:PERM/AP mentions that redirects (and dabpages) aren't counted for the 25-article-minimum for autopatrolled, but saying "if you create a lot of good redirects, consider applying at WP:RWHITELIST instead" could be helpful. (I'm aware that it is mentioned under the "handled elswhere" header but frankly I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't look at that, they just scroll down to the permissions.) ScalarFactor (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Typically most creators don't necessarily care whether their content is marked as patrolled or not, and if they do, it's usually people wanting their articles to appear on Google before 90 days (since the creation of the article). Really what we'd want is NPPers making the recommendations because they'll be the ones who care about getting the redirect backlog down. MPGuy2824 is the most significant redirect reviewer since I became less active and they're already aware of this page, and they've made a number of recommendations in the past. I think it's just a matter of not having a ton of redirect reviewers, and if we do get redirect reviewers, making sure they are aware of the RAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't panic about RFD having a backlog because 1) it's not nearly as important as the article backlog (the article backlog gets hit by UPEs who, if left unchecked, would corrupt the encyclopedia with their lack of NPOV), and 2) redirects not patrolled in 6 months get autopatrolled by the software, which keeps the backlog from getting too high. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

My perspective on the topic: There are multiple types of revisions needed for the backlog redirects, after reviewing about a dozen of them:

• MOST lack an R-template, which is kind of important in my mind, but which many other think is unnecessary
• Some point at articles where they should point at extant sections.
• Some point at articles where they should (for convenience) point at anchors ... and I've been adding those anchors to the target articles in a couple of cases

I think there is a place for redirect-NPP, but it might be useful to split redirects from articles, a separate NPP list and a different set of suggestions for redirects emerging from NPP as 'reviewed'.

Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

What are the notability criteria for laws and bills and so on?

King's Revenues Act 1515 is very short, it really just say this exists. But I realise I have no idea if there are specific notability criteria for laws? And of course there might be other sources. Lijil (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so certain that a 16th-century act of parliament has much in the way of sourcing, and I'm unaware of any SNG for acts of parliament. -- asilvering (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just WP:GNG I think. Although the sources simply need to exist and don't need to be in the article (WP:BEFORE). –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm seeing sources about "King's Revenues" but not about a specific act in 1515. Might look a bit more tomorrow otherwise I guess AfD. I'm starting to feel so mean about all the AfDs though. Lijil (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If it was clearly part of a series of articles, I’d suggest draftifying, but the act that repealed it was a general-purpose mass-tidying so not a successor in any meaningful sense. AfD is a good place to debate the actual article, so not necessarily something to feel mean about. Maybe somebody with subject-matter expertise could create King's Revenues and redirect 1515 to there, but this isn’t the place for that discussion. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the feedback! Lijil (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

User talk notification edit summary

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T414521

This seems missing - see this diff. Ping Aafi, when responding. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible Orphan Label

I was recently granted new pages patroller. There have been some articles tagged in the New Pages Feed as possibly orphaned that I have hyperlinked to other articles. However, the "possible orphan" label on the New Pages Feed remains on those articles days later (for example, Aviteur). Would it be possible for the "possible orphan" label on the New Pages Feed to be removed after an article is hyperlinked to other articles? EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

An "orphan" is a page with no wikilinks to it. Did you link other articles to that one -- your message implies the other way around. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I did (sorry if that was unclear. I linked Aviteur to Patricia Gucci on May 6. On the New Pages Feed, it still has a "Possible Orphan", Aviteur still has a "Possible Orphan" label. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

In your question, I'll assume that you meant "that I have hyperlinked from other articles". You need to do a null edit (or any edit) on the article in the NPP queue. That should update all the automatically generated issues for the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 I did mean from. Sorry for any confusion. The null edit worked. Thank you! EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello New pages patrol,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This says "both queues are growing rapidly", but the image shows the article queue decreasing (which is of course impressive but still contradicts the message). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ouch - I'll have to apologize for this one, I originally wrote that part before the backlog drive and then revised it again, it made sense to me when I wrote it but obviously it doesn't really. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Species Helper errors

I'm getting this error about 50% of the time when using Species Helper for the last couple of weeks - just wondering does it affect anyone else? Just pinging Novem Linguae in case there is anything amiss in the script. Thank you Josey Wales ^Parley 09:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@EatingCarBatteries also reported this at User talk:Novem Linguae#Garbled response using SpeciesHelper. Something probably broke somewhere. I'll need to carve out some time to debug it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Failing page in screenshot: Macratria durrelli. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Should be Fixed now. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@User:Novem LinguaeThanks for all your work on this Josey Wales ^Parley 08:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

LDS sources and notability for an LDS temple

What do we think about this article? Cagayan de Oro Philippines Temple

There is decent sourcing but it is all LDS newspapers or websites. Are we having it or not?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This has turned into a bit of an edit war between a full article (imho purely promotional) and a BLAR. The last time it was a full article, I tagged it as WP:PROD but I see it’s now gone back to being a redirect. I should probably now wait for the article to reappear and go for WP:AFD. What do we normally do in this situation? If we happen to review an unsuitable article while it is an article, it goes through a draft or deletion route. If, however, it keeps being BLAR, do we send it to WP:RFD while it’s a redirect, or wait until someone reverts it back to an article so we can use AFD? --Northernhenge (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A little late replying here, but LDS temples invariably become notable by virtue of independent coverage shortly after if not before their dedications. If a page is created too soon, I don’t think it’s worth the time of AfDing it; just make sure it’s sourced and otherwise properly laid out. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Excessively detailed pages

I've come across a user named @Muffinbutt1985 who has been making excessively detailed Wikipedia pages that don't follow WP:TOOMUCH. Yusra Hussien and Samya Dirie, Portsmouth terrorist cell, Yusra Ismail, Mannan family terrorist cell, and Zafirr Golamaully. CostalCal (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What can I do to make them Sound more neutral? I’m autistic with a special interest in it Muffinbutt1985 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Muffinbutt1985 - Although I do believe that it mostly retains a neutral point of view. I've changed the tag. And I do thank you for creating these articles. However, it's still obvious that these articles go into way too much detail, per WP:TOOMUCH. Wikipedia is only supposed to be a summary. CostalCal (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I will work on removing the excess details. Muffinbutt1985 (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! CostalCal (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ve worked on removing excessive detail from a couple of the entries, I removed the “excessive detail” box from the ones I believe I have fixed. Will be working on some others later today. Muffinbutt1985 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again! CostalCal (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Unable to move article due to page lock

I reviewed the AFC article Draft:Goyslop and was going to accept it through AFC. I'm unable accept it through AFC since a soft redirect for the page is globally locked. How should I go about accepting this page? EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe this would count as a request to decrease page protection, which would make the protecting administrator the first person to contact. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@ScalarFactor It looks like @Asilvering already G6ed the soft redirect, but I will do as you suggested in the future! EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, I've G6'd, and you're clear to accep the draft. -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you! EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

A small terminology correction. I don't think there's a protection level called "globally locked". It might be more accurate to say "protected", since "globally locked" is a term that usually refers to user accounts (WP:GLOCK). Hope that helps! –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I meant fully locked, not sure why I wrote globally locked lol. Thank you! EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Review request on XCOMM band

Hi there, The article XCOMM was temporarily moved to draft space and then brought back to mainspace by JSFarman without a formal review. The page is currently live but remains unreviewed and unindexed by search engines. It contains (3 sources from Revolver), and No Echo. However because the band is new and less known, it only has little sources, but I think it is enough for a Wikipaedia article. (for now) Could a reviewer please patrol and officially mark the page as reviewed so it can be indexed? Scotswomen (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed by another Editor. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What about Time to Burn (XCOMM album)? Could you or any other reviewer, review it? Scotswomen (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Second Cristero War - concerned with a lot of things

Hello. I'm trying to tackle all of Mexico's new articles and came across the Second Cristero War. The article has a lot problems which I've raised in the header tags: largely unsourced sections, possible original research, and messy writing format per WP:MOS. The editor who made this article simply translated it from Spanish Wikipedia and by the looks of it did not do any citation verification. This concerns me on original research. The topic is real (not a hoax), but would probably be best titled as "Aftermath of the Cristero War", trimmed for what is factually verifiable, or merged with the target Cristero War article, which also needs expert assistance.

What can we do in situations like this? Easiest thing would be to WP:BOMB this or move to draft. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If I’d seen the article before I saw this discussion, I would have draftified it and sent the article creator a brief explanation of the tags that are already on it. (WP:BOMB is a dab – if you mean Edit-a-Thon, that feels like overkill for a relatively niche topic, but it could be done in draft space if enough editors were interested.) --Northernhenge (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Northernhenge Ummm ... did you mean WP:TNT rather than "Edit-a-thon"? Predictive text strikes again? PamD 11:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, that’s probably what @Morogris meant. I’ll add it to the dab page! --Northernhenge (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Meant TNT, my bad! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 15:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It has a lot of signs of LLM use, you could stubify if the topic itself is notable but the content problematic. Orange sticker (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've trimmed the article now. I'm still concerned that the sources actually back up the information provided considering all this was translated from Spanish Wikipedia and the translator did not verify. Should we keep as is or move to draft? I would be more comfortable moving to draft and working on this slowly but not sure how to do that. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 15:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, WP:DRAFTREASON #2 is The article consists of machine-generated text, such as an unreviewed machine translation, so I think there's probably a decent reason there if you think that is the case. I think the article creator is less likely to object if you make it clear that you are going to help work on the article too. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's in draft now. Appreciate the guidance. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Requesting review of a NPP reviewers status/rights

How do I go about requesting a review of the NPP status of someone? (ANI does not seem appropriate, but maybe I am wrong.) I just reverted a draftification by SaTnamZIN of John Wood Sweet; unfortunately this is not the first inappropriate draftification of an academic by this user. The editor appears to believe that it is justified to label as COI (and in one case UPE) any case where the page creator has made few other edits. While this may be COI, an accusation such as this is not appropriate without evidence; per WP:COICOIN the editor should be politely asked. Other cases have been when a pass of WP:NPROF is self evident, and AfD nominations which do not follow policy or are not for correct reasons. It does not appear that SaTnamZIN has a good understanding of academics. You can see some discussion at User talk:SaTnamZIN; I am not the only person who has questioned some of the decisions, what I mention here is not everything.

Courtesy pings of Ekabhishek and HJ Mitchell. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Aside from this, I am concerned about their English proficiency, which should really be a no brainer for somebody reviewing pages.

I genuinely cannot decipher what "For sake of own faith, please ask yourself, how come a very new editor creates an article of an Academic, which is very high on bar?" means. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I am also concerned about their English proficiency. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look into this right now, but you request it just like you've done here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems WP:AN is the designated place. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Review_and_removal_of_permissions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, that's not a totally unreasonable place to go, but it's really high-visibility. I think it's much kinder to escalate to WT:NPP or WT:AFC. -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've left a note at SaTnamZIN's talk page to ensure they are aware of this discussion. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 why you are so desperate against me? At my talk page, I have cleared all of your doubts. And now you are here. --SatnaamIN (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I know that somehow these actions falls around the realms of WP:NPPREVOKE #1, but since this is the first time an issue like this is raised, can we please let this slide and hope that SatnaamIN learns from this? FWIW mentioning, I was worst when I started NPP back then, but who am I to praise myself now? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. I had a discussion with SatnaamIN on their talk page on the 18th and 19th, pointing out 3 issues at first then another 3. Rechecking today I found the draftification today of John Wood Sweet I mentioned above. Apparently my remarks about the issues a few days ago did not have enough of an impact, which is why I felt this needs further discussion/analysis. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 your concerns were replied well at my TP. But it seems you are trying to decide yourself against me. Anything personal? SatnaamIN (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 are you happy now? You got what you wanted. SatnaamIN (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You are continually demonstrating exactly why you should not ever have NPP rights again. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No one is perfect all the time. I might have done couple of mistakes, but those mistakes are no damage. SatnaamIN (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

...ok, sorry, I've seen enough here and am stepping in to pull permissions. I'm not impressed by the repeat deflection or implication that others should be expected to clean up after them, and the replies at their talk page don't indicate an accurate understanding of WP:NPPDRAFT, but honestly my top concern here is insufficient English proficiency. It is extremely demoralizing to receive new page review feedback from an editor who cannot consistently write comprehensible, idiomatically correct English. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

While I might now be happy with this outcome, the user in question isn’t helping matters either. Signs off… Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems the user in question has changed their username and flounced. see also this edit summary which I think is pretty telling. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: Just noting some recent background for context. About a week ago, this user was highly preoccupied with questioning why another editor's NPR permissions request had been accepted. They subsequently brought the same 'grievance' to Bonadea's candidacy. Their request for the Page Mover tool was declined due to this behaviour and also due to the broader civility concerns (see here and here). I had initial reservations that they might not be here to build an encyclopedia, but I opted to observe their editing further before commenting. However, the latest issues raised regarding their NPR reviews, combined with their combative talk page interactions and apparent forum shopping, seem to validate those early impressions. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 11:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also noting Special:Diff/1355492677 regarding this thread. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, immediately after these concerns were raised, the user opted for a rather dramatic exit by placing a retired banner on their talk page. Its funny how their concept of something being "permanent" has a fairly brief shelf life. Exactly two minutes later they pivoted to declaring the account "abandoned" instead. I wonder what kind of profound semantic distinction they were aiming for with that rapid change of heart. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 15:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, this makes the defensiveness in response to Ldm1954's inquiry look much more hypocritical. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

On a slightly tangential note, I couldn't help but observe an odd quirk about their username. Has anyone ever noticed that their username is eerily similar to Tamzin's, with the name essentially embedded directly into it (SaTnamZIN). It may very well be a pure coincidence, but given the context of this discussion, I thought it was worth pointing out for the record. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 16:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That did draw my attention the first time I saw them pop up on my watchlist (way before any of the associated drama here took hold), but I don't think there's anything else in their behavior that suggests that they were trying to mimic, harass or undermine Tamzin, and their subsequent signatures and name changes don't suggest that imitating the name Tamzin was a priority. I think a more likely explanation is that their name was intended to refer to Satnam. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It could be possible! Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 17:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

+ adding they said they were Indian, so that's likely what the IN stood for. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

COI after review?

Per WP:EDITCOI, articles created with a conflict of interest should go through AFC. In the event that someone has violated without a COI declaration and created their draft in mainspace, and it is marked as reviewed, only for the COI to be declared after the review, should it still be draftified if it is eligible for it? Assuming the subject meets notability, it seems like it would simply be accepted anyway, but the COI processes are supposed to be relatively strict.

I came across Search (college selection service) in the new pages feed and it appeared notable, so I marked as reviewed, but afterward the creator declared his conflict of interest as the founder of the service on the talk page (Special:Diff/1355601944). He had also created three other articles on his companies/projects, two of which I draftified as they had not yet been reviewed, but the last (Contact (computer dating)) had already been reviewed by @JTtheOG.

What, if any, is the proper corrective course of action here for the Search and Contact articles, which both appear notable and are still within the 90 day draftification window? Do we let them be with a warning for the future, or is it better to enforce the proper COI processes? Though it does appear to be notable, the prose and light OR on the Search article are things that may have held it up at AFC imo. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to send someone to AFC limbo just for the bureaucratic joy of it. If you want to have a more sceptical look at the mainspace article now that you know it's COI-related, no one will stop you, but if you didn't see anything that appeared to need cleanup the first time, it's probably fine. If you think it needs a deeper look than you're willing to give at the moment, you can always add a COI tag. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Tags for a week before draftification?

Is there a consensus or rule that we ought to leave a new article which has two or more non-reliable sources, or reliable sources without sigcov, in mainspace for a week or so before draftifying? That has not been my practice so far, but an admin has advised me this is what we should do.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that is the admin's personal opinion not a policy or guideline. I generally tag an article and leave it 24 hours before draftifying (if appropriate) if there has been no effort to improve the article. John B123 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it must depend upon the level of the issues, plus how actively it is being edited. If it has two our of 18 that are dubious I would probably tag, send a note and wait for at least a week. If it is two out of four I would either tag and draftify, or wait 24 hours or so. Note: the only issue with waiting is whether you remember to recheck. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

In this case the admin was talking about articles with no reliable sources giving sigcov at all, but a number between 2 and infinity of reliable sources that don't give sigcov. I wouldn't draftify any article that had 2 reliable sources with sigcov, even if all the others were total junk. If it's passed WP:GNG, I'd probably just mark it as reviewed.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I am generally of the opinion that if it wasn't so serious you felt compelled to draftify it right away, it's probably not a good idea to draftify it at all. There are many reasons for that, but among them is that many article creators create their article and then disappear forever. I prefer to use draftification as a kindness when the alternative is deletion. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

According to the rules, you can draftify anytime between 1 hour after creation to 90 days after creation. Any additional waiting is an extra courtesy that some patrollers may choose to extend, but is not required. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Automated source verification

Hi all - I am one of the developers of Source Verifier userscript that checks whether citations support claims they are attached to. While it has a number of limitations, quite a few editors found it helpful for good/featured article review and other processes ("the ability to step through the Report systematically made a huge improvement over manually verifying citations in this long technical article"). It seems like it can help new page patrollers too. I ran it on a couple of random articles from New Pages Feed and found inaccuracies (, ) - I've also added full reports on the talk pages where you can see false positives too.

The tool is still a work in progress and I'd be grateful if you tried it and let me know what works and what can be improved. Alaexis_¿question? 12:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible NPR removal request

There is a discussion at WT:AFC about some problematic reviews by an NPR, which might have the knock-on effect of having their NPR perm revoked. Please feel free to join in the conversation. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the proposal looking at discussion and per their poor understanding at AFD. No one under 80% success rate of AFD should be given NPR right. The questioned NPR have a clear problem of WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Zne0us Phenix (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Mine was just over 80 last time I looked, but if I wanted to increase it I’d find discussions where the consensus was already very clear and add the obvious !vote. The raw figures don’t say much on their own. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I will comment that I am not enthusiastic about them as an NPP or AfC reviewer based upon a few draftifications/AfD comments of theirs I have seen (for academics). The log of their AfD votes is certainly very discouraging, particularly as most of them are when they are the nom. I am also not so happy with the fact that they have not spent much time improving articles; I would prefer it if editors applying to be NPP had a record of creating a few articles, ideally up to A or GA level. Doing it yourself is perhaps the best way to learn how hard it can be.

I lean towards letting their NPP rights expire on June 2nd, and not be renewed or made permanent. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Would this article be considered ECR?

Would the Lillian Rosengarten article be considered ECR? A non-ECR user is the only substantial contributor to it, so if it is, it should be CSDed? If not, I'll patrol it. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Is frequently starting sentences with –ing words, a sign of LLM or is that just something that some folks do? (Fleeing..., Working..., Residing..., Marrying..., Seeing..., Frequently writing...) --Northernhenge (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Northernhenge I just put it through GPTzero and got that it was written by a human. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Careful. AI detectors are not reliable. Better to go off experience, WP:AITELLS, and patterns of editing in multiple articles from the same editor. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, the person as a whole is not ECR, but the parts of the article that pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict are ECR. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering So how should I go about patrolling it? Do I CSD? Do I mark it as reviewed? EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think you could remove all the PIA-related stuff without leaving a sad, useless husk of an article, you could do that, and explain the restrictions to the editor. But if there wouldn't be much of anything left after you do that, CSD is kind of all you've got. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I don't believe there would be a lot left (at least not anything demonstrating notability). EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought from a quick skim earlier. Please do give the editor the standard CT alert when you CSD, but also, a personal note about ECR in specific and offering some sympathy would be nice. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Did as you advised. I feel bad for the user in question, especially since it was an accepted AFC draft that had already been declined once in the past. EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. In this kind of situation, you can also always let them know that the deletion isn't necessarily permanent, and if they reach XC they can ask for it to be undeleted. Which doesn't take much sting out of it, but may help. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that speedy deleting this article is inappropriate. It is true that it lies within the speedy-deletion criteria, but deletion criteria are intended to provide possible reasons for deletion rather than necessarily to mandate that absolutely everything that meets them must always be deleted (no?), and I do not see that it makes any sense to delete this article for violating the ECR restriction in the absence of specific content problems, especially if created in good faith by a new editor who is unaware of the rule in question. Some weight here ought to be given here to WP:BITE, and to the general principle that rules ought not to be enforced if they involve removing good content from the encyclopedia (WP:IAR?). Dionysodorus (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, WP:ECR does say: Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. I'm not quite sure how you would correctly provoke an administrator into exercising their discretion, but if you were reasonably confident in the article's content otherwise, @Dionysodorus, maybe you could adopt it and remove the CSD template, with a decent edit summary explaining the situation. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dionysodorus@SunloungerFrog An administrator in this thread, @Asilvering, did give the go a head for me to put the CSD template on the article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that if there were any real belief or serious suspicion by editors here that the article included problematic content (whether OR, egregious POV pushing, or something else), CSD would be appropriate, but otherwise I'd agree with Dionysodorus here (especially given the prior AfC approval). In the past I've proposed that new page patrollers take more responsibility for enforcing ECR, and if memory serves I was roundly voted down. Regardless, the editor should be informed of the relevant restriction (which has been done) even if they're given a pass, as a reasoned exception should not turn into persistent flounting of the rule. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks: I've just removed the tag, as any editor is allowed to do, if I am correct in my understanding of WP:CSDCONTEST. The article can of course still be nominated for deletion at AfD, if anyone feels that the content is sufficiently problematic to justify that. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll also point out that ECR provision A2 says Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. -- my understanding is that this discretion essentially also extends to anyone considering CSDing the page _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't cite copyvio in CSD due to spam blacklist

The article Ben Ingram is a 97.71% match for Wiktia. However, I can't tag it for CSD due to Wiktia being on the spam blacklist. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Handled. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AI edit summary log

I have a bot which runs through all recent changes and flags edit summaries which it thinks are AI generated. As noted at the top of the log page, the log itself is vulnerable to false positives and should never be cited as evidence for accusations of AI, but I think it doesn't have that many false positives anymore. It might be of interest to RCP/NPP to facilitate early AI detection. (And since I don't think RCP has a good talk page, I'm posting here - feel free to let me know if wrong place etc) Fermiboson (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WT:AIC seems like the obvious place to post this. lp0 on fire () 08:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

UPE-block cleanup

Hi folks, I've just blocked GreenRedFlag for UPE following a COIVRT ticket. The UPE involves their AFC accepts and their edits, so there's quite a bit to go through. I'll revoke NPR but would appreciate it if others handled the rest. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, they seem to also be a habitual LLM misuser and have used LLMs to respond to AfC submissions. – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I have undone all of GreenRedFlag's NPP actions. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

How to deal with incivility after nominating article for deletion?

I nominated an article for deletion for failing WP:NPOL. The article had been published five hours prior, had no draft in progress tag, and consisted of two sentence.

In the AFD, the article's creator has repeatedly attacked me and my competence in the AFD, accusing me of camping NPP threads and abusing my privilege as a NPP/not using it constructively , , .

How should I handle this? EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37: First, I'd recommend not engaging with them further as they seem to be dialling up the heat a bit with every reply. (You might have figured this out already.) I am contemplating a response to them because they seem to have some confusion about the purpose of New Page Patrol (it's in the name!). Is this your first interaction with this user? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh It is my first interaction with them. They have 16k edits, so they aren't a new user either. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Their responses to you are shockingly rude and arrogant. They claim that you "camp[ed] NPP feeds" (that's exactly what NPP is) to AfD a page that was "very clearly undergoing expansion/creation".

Taking a look at the article history, however, it is clear that this not the case. You nominated the page for deletion five hours after creation (which, funnily enough, is also five hours after they last edited it). They did nothing for 3 whole days, at which point they added the under construction tag. They then waited another 2 days (5 days after the page – apparently "clearly undergoing expansion" – was created) to add any new content (namely, one sentence of prose and a bare URL).

They're either being blissfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest – let's hope it is the former! aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Dclemens gives good advice, though I do think the last comment is bordering on a civil personal attack. I'll keep an eye on the AfD but hopefully they don't continue to goad you.

I have drafted a response regarding the "one week" confusion, which I'll keep on ice in case it's needed. Edit count isn't everything; having created a lot of content doesn't necessarily mean that someone understands the deletion policies or NPP workflows. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh I don't plan on engaging with that AFD further. I'll only end up risking a WP:UNCIVIL violation myself lol. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could offer a brief overview of the new page review process on the user’s talk page. It seems like they had a misconception about deletion processes (the bit about a week is perhaps a conflation with the minimum time for a deletion discussion with the window before a discussion can be opened). But you’re under no obligation to do so, and I don’t think further reply in the AfD will be helpful or on topic. The closer will disregard incorrect assumptions about AfD processes.

One piece of advice—even though an hour is the minimum, it doesn’t hurt to wait a day or to to file an AfD. Some editors don’t user draftspace to build articles, and as long as there’s not material warranting speedy deletion, there is no deadline and reviewers have no need to rush an AfD. I think the comment on the spirit versus the law here is reasonable. My usual practice if I patrol a brand new article that I don’t believe meets notability guidelines is to draftify it, provided it meets those criteria, or to tag it for notability concerns and come back in a day or two and consider an afd if there have been no improvements.

As for the editor’s other comments, I don’t think they’re personal attacks. They disagree with how you’ve used the NPP permission, and that’s a behavioural analysis, whether flawed or not. It does look like a failure of AGF on their part, but unless you’re encountering ABF from this editor elsewhere and repeatedly, I’d suggest letting it go. You’ve made your point, others can see it clearly, and you will encounter worse treatment as a new page reviewer. Thanks and good luck! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Usually, I probably would have waited longer, but I'm currently on a one-month trial for NPP (expires on June 1st, reapplied on May 21st but still waiting to here back), and given the ongoing New Pages Patrol Backlog Drive/finding the page very late at night, if I waited to AFD it, it would have almost certainly been handled by another NPPer. If I am not decisive enough in my decisions, I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term. I'm also just aggressive for nominating articles failing WP:NPOL for deletion. I did not find any sourcing online that showed that the candidate met WP:NPOL (or WP:GNG as a CEO), so expanding the article wouldn't have made a difference either way for me because the article, in my view, was about a subject that didn't pass notability guidelines.

My main issue is that even if they disagreed with my judgment in this case, they are making assumptions about my entire record (which is over 200 pages curated at this point). EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I don't think this is even in my patrol log because I do AFDs through twinkle. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a note as another NPPer, not an admin: I get the sense of urgency, but I expect anyone reviewing your permission request will be looking for quality as well as quantity. (And they'll know to look at your Twinkle-generated XfD and CSD logs too.) I don't think you've done anything wrong here, but it's best not to make hasty nominations to meet a deadline or quota. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh To be clear, I am careful while patrolling. I just don't wait if I feel confident in a decision. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't review something just because you think you need to just to keep the permission. Looking at your logs, you have 175 entries with "marked as reviewed". I am not an admit but that is well above what I would expect is needed to maintain the permission and so only the quality of the reviews matter now. I am not offering an opinion of the reviews just saying I think I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term is not a very healthy mindset. Skynxnex (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Skynxnex To be clear, I am careful when reviewing. I was just explaining why I didn’t wait another day or two before nominating for deletion. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, others have responded to If I am not decisive enough in my decisions, I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term already, but your own responses to them make me think you haven't quite understood what the issue is here, so, speaking as an admin: acting with undue haste and/or getting into conflicts and handling them poorly/defensively is a reason to not renew your perm, and indeed one of the most common reasons why I don't, or why I revoke it. Meanwhile, the number of reviews is barely important at all. If the reviewing admin doesn't think you've made enough reviews to make a solid decision, they can always give you another trial. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I do understand why acting too hastily is bad (more likely to make mistakes/miss something). I do tend to be cautious when reviewing (i.e., if I mark an article is reviewed, it's either A) In the easy reviews section of NPP (checking AFD nominated articles for copyright and any other issues before approving, or having a filtered view of politicians or AFC accepted) or a topic I am more knowledgable about (American sports, American politics, or PIA). If I am unsure about an article, I move on and let others handle it later.

In hindsight, the If I am not decisive enough in my decisions, I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term really doesn't sound great on my end. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, I view being attacked for my reviews as part of the job. Indeed, I would classify what is in that AfD as quite mild, nothing to be concerned about. I only rarely review political articles, but would not be surprised to find them to be more contentious. Personally I might have draftified that particular article, but that is just my approach. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Drafts tagged with no citations even though they do have citations?

I'm an AfC reviewer, and I often filter the new pages feed to look for drafts that have no citations. There were two showing when I last checked with that filter, Draft:Dinesh Krishnan B. and Draft:Institute of Advanced Radiosurgery, but they both have citations. Why are they showing up with the "no citations" filter? Thanks.

I previously asked this at the Teahouse, and was advised to post it here. Someone said it might be because both drafts were marked with having "unbalanced ref tags". Could that be why? In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In general (not necessarily in these examples) , it would be worth looking at the edit history to see if someone has added sources but left the tag in place. Maybe they forgot about it, or maybe they weren’t very convinced the sources they’d found were the best. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)