User talk:Left guide

Hello Left guide,

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) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I raised this issue (partially to you) here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1213. The end result was that about 2 weeks after this conversation, they were range blocked for a few months. I believe they have now immediately resumed the same behaviour on this account.

I tried to remember who ended up doing the range block (from what I recall it was not you) but I cannot. Is there any way that I/you can do this, or could you just extend the range block?

Thank you aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias: From my cursory check, there's too much editing that isn't jumping out as unambiguous disruption for me to block. Activity from elsewhere on the range is too stale for me to meaningfully consider. But I'm not as prolific of a blocker as many other admins, especially in topic areas I'm not too familiar with. The original blocker was Black Kite so you could ask them, or a relevant noticeboard. As before, I'd highly recommend applying for WP:TAIV if you haven't already. Left guide (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo perfect thank you for getting that name for me. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my past actions and for clearing my talk page. I understand that my communication was poor, and I am ready to follow the community's feedback and respond to all concerns on my talk page properly. I promise to use JWB responsibly and strictly follow the Manual of Style. Please give me a chance to show that I can improve. Astra.L (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Astra.L: The best way to demonstrate real behavioral change is via actions and not just promises, so you already have a chance to show that you can improve now and in the near future. I'd suggest editing for another month or two where you follow through on these promises of being communicative and collaborative with others who raise good-faith concerns about your edits. Then you'd be in a better position to have a request for AWB/JWB that is persuasive to reviewing admins. Left guide (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just thought I'd say my revert was also a bit more than just too soon I'll be honest. I'm acutely aware of the power dynamics in this discussion: I'm calling for the abolition of immunity and there are 'invincibles' who are very much being supportive and attempting to facilitate that proposal (such as yourself, but courtesy ping to @Chaotic Enby also). It just felt a bit off to me raising the importance of that discussion for that reason alone I think, followed by the lead balloon response so far. This potentially relates to a point I raised recently about 'silent complicity' (second paragraph): you'd have to read between the lines as to how that applies, but generally, I don't want any admin who has such 'immunity' to feel compelled to support/enable such proposals based on any feeling of responsibility, guilt, or otherwise. AS I'm also not trying to call anyone out here per I acknowledge that I'm suggesting 'trying to fix something that's not broken'.[1] I'm not sure what I've written makes much sense, but maybe it provides some further context. I know you very much meant well by adding it to CENT, the reason I removed it was effectively in the same spirit :) kind regards, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor: No worries on the revert. It's standard BRD stuff, and I can see how others find my edit premature. I mainly added to CENT out of concern to avoid a small group of 5–10 editors splintering off from the debrief to make a major change on recall that may not necessarily reflect broader community consensus. I'm actually not supportive of any particular position at the moment, though I can understand why some of my comments might lead someone to believe that I am depending on their perception. There's certainly no guilt or responsibility on my end; I just make assessments based on the merits of the arguments presented. And yes I agree that everyone is certainly acting in good faith. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK good to hear, that makes a lot more sense when you put it like that. Glad to hear it's not what I was concerned about, it's also impossible to tell the difference at face value. From my perspective, I've had half-baked ideas shot down a lot quicker, so I was party thinking "why is this still being entertained when it's DOA". I should try stop overthinking so much, get a bit more sleep I think. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor FWIW, I don't think it's in DOA -- I think it's an idea well worth discussing. Also, to continue the metaphorical language, just because something is DOA doesn't mean it's not worth seriously looking at. 'Cause, you know, organ donation. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not being compelled to support this proposal for any of these reasons, as I do support the idea of more admin accountability in general. Beyond it being a good thing on principle, the easier we can hold our admins accountable, the less we have to worry about a bad admin slipping through RfA/AELECT, and the more admins we can get. Additionally, I genuinely don't think your idea is anywhere close to DOA, otherwise the discussion would have probably been left to die out without being moved to WT:RECALL. I very much relate to being overly harsh about one's own proposals, and that is why it is very much a good thing to have other people help you assess the situation more objectively. And sleep definitely helps when spiraling, you're right! (bonus content) Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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