BusterD

With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

4,541 pending submissions

Archives

22 Jul 05 – 26 Sep 06 09 Oct 06 – 05 Dec 06 14 Dec 06 – 07 Nov 07 01 Dec 07 – 12 Feb 08 15 Feb 08 – 08 May 08 19 May 08 – 13 Nov 08 26 Nov 08 – 07 Sep 09 08 Sep 09 – 29 Oct 10 29 Oct 10 – 26 Sep 11 04 Oct 11 – 30 Sep 12 01 Oct 12 – 13 Oct 13 26 Oct 13 – 27 Aug 14 09 Sep 14 – 24 Dec 15 25 Dec 15 – 08 Apr 18 21 Apr 18 – 30 Jun 19 07 Jul 19 – 26 Apr 21 03 May 21 – 05 Apr 22 07 Apr 22 – 26 Dec 22 01 Jan 23 – 01 Jan 24 01 Jan 24 – 31 Dec 24 01 Jan 25 - 26 Jun 25 06 Jul 25 - 31 Dec 25

.

Mistaken talk page deletion

Hi BusterD, I think you mistakenly deleted User talk:Onyemauche46 when you got the associated userpage. Thanks, Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 12:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite right; I've corrected myself. Thanks for the sharp eyes! BusterD (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

An issue over a draft that I recently requested to be deleted.

Hey, @BusterD. I hope that you saw what Ivanvector said on his talk page. It appears that both you and I slipped up with Draft: The Great Meme Reset of 2026 by deleting it for vandalism. I wanted to let you know in case you didn't see the reply, he's not too pleased about this. I'm still not sure if this subject matter is fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, but regardless, you should probably know about this. Thanks. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please restore Draft:Radford Sechrist?

I would like to keep working on it, as I had worked on it prior to the deletion, and had been hoping to move it through the process to hopefully become a page in the mainspace. Also, to be clear, I have no connection to that now-banned user. I just don't want my contributions to the page to be eliminated, as I'd have to start from scratch, which would be a challenge, and it would be better to start with something I can improve. Thanks and I hope to hear from you.--Historyday01 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. Sometimes it's difficult to sort wheat from chaff. BusterD (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that the page can get accepted. Historyday01 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The Great Meme Reset of 2026 situation

The Great Meme Reset of 2026 got tagged for A7 once more, this is turning into a bit of a farce, with this cycle of marking for deletion and then the page gets restored. I thought you'd like to know about this. Also I recommend that you try to find a way to handle this quickly before it gets deleted for the THIRD time. @Ivanvector is likely going to be pissed at this, and I'd rather we'd avoid pissing off anyone over this, even if it is valid and instead try to discuss this properly in an AfD. I look forward to how you handle this, because my God, I am frankly sick of this debacle, and it seems to just be wasting everyone's time over and over again. Thanks in advance! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay the notice was removed, but if it gets tagged again, I'm just going to nominate it for an AfD instead. Also hopefully that won't happen because I think you're just as annoyed as I am over this nonsense. This could very well be a great case of judging a book by its cover. I still recommend that you keep that page on your watchlist for the time being. Thanks in advance once again! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Revdel

Hello, I don't think your latest revdels required hiding the revision content. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll concede the blanking of a single character seems unnecessary, but per WP:DENY, I prefer to leave no trace of obviously intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

G11 Deletion Livingseeds Heirloom Seeds

Hello BusterD,

I understand the G11 deletion of Draft:Livingseeds Heirloom Seeds.

I would like to request undeletion of the draft into my userspace or Draft space for further improvement through the Articles for Creation process. The topic is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources (TimesLIVE, Primedia/702, nisBOERE, go! Platteland, Heart & Soil Newsletter), and I am happy to substantially trim operational detail and further neutralise tone to address the concerns raised.

I am not requesting immediate publication, only the opportunity to improve the draft in line with policy.

Thank you for your time.

Aloefundi Aloefundi (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the page on your request. This page looks like a brochure for the company. The primary difference between an article and a social media profile is that a profile says what the subject says about themself, whereas a Wikipedia article should relay what others have said about the subject. So before it gets tagged for speedy again, I'd blank any sections which aren't entirely drawn from reliable sources which aren't connected in any way to the subject. Better to blank and rebuild than have the whole thing tagged and deleted again. BusterD (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for restoring the draft and for the guidance.

I’ll blank the self-descriptive sections and rebuild the article focusing on independent coverage and secondary sources, in line with your advice and WP:ORG.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain the issue.

Aloefundi Aloefundi (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Groza

Why did you delete the page of the German band Groza. I don't see the issue. They are playing at big festivals en headline show in many European countries. They are relevant enough to have a place on wikipedia. I did not even got the time to discuss this issue Qatus (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Federation of Medical Women of Canada

Hi Buster,

I saw that you speed deleted the page but I'm not clear why? I had included an explanation on the page as to why I believed it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The deletion summary noted that it was “not ready for mainspace,” but did not specify which criteria were not met or what changes would have been required. The page did not fall under any of the criteria for a non-discussed deletion and it feels somewhat underhanded the way it was done. A (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not tag it, and I declined the speedy tag applied. I do not agree with you this should be published in mainspace at this time. I moved it to draftspace at: Draft:Federation of Medical Women of Canada where all of the work is protected from yet another good faith editor tagging it for deletion. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick on the edit!

First off: I was in the process of editing it when you responded. I said underhanded but realized after looking its definition up, that it wasn't what I meant at all and was in the process of replacing it with non transparent. Sorry for the accidental insult, it really wasn't meant that way. I can see from the rest of your edits that you work in good faith.

Second: I'm fairly frustrated about the move to draft space because while I think this article is notable enough for wikipedia I don't want to spend weeks working on it alone. I had carefully sourced it and I think it is good enough to be worked on in the main space as opposed to alone in the backspace. What is so crucial missing/wrong that it cant be worked on in public? A (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It lacks independent coverage. I have no doubt the organization exists. I have no doubt you are working in good faith, or I would have deleted the page as tagged. The only sources you have applied are connected in significant ways to the subject. If you found a Toronto or Vancouver newspaper article about a meeting of the org, as an example, you'd be on better footing. If it's republished in its current form, it will likely be deleted again.

I don't make this stuff up. I'm merely acting in an administrative role when I delete tagged pages. We don't really care what the organization says about itself. There's a wide variety of social media for that purpose. A Wikipedia article should reflect what others have said about the topic. So we have WP:Notability and WP:Verification thresholds. And for organizations we have WP:ORG, which raises a high bar for proof. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you made it up - I just thought a Canadian Encyclopedia article on the topic was sufficient independent coverage and I hadn't realized that was what was missing.

Would either of these count as sufficient independent coverage? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2277535/ or this https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A10%3A5367210/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A66754974&crl=c&link_origin=scholar.google.com A (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Both of those would add much more direct detailing, yes. The sweet spot is published secondary sourcing, unlike an encyclopedia which is tertiary. Professional journals are iffy, but in this case you're fine. The second (monograph?) I'm not sure about; seems likely RS (and certainly claims to be direct detailing). Your account likely qualifies for WP:The Wikipedia Library so you should visit them for access to a multitude of sources. I'm seeing a fair number of articles from Canadian papers on newspapers.com. Most of the mentions act as qualifiers for individual members (often in obituary/profile). BusterD (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can help, I'm certain. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I'll go find a couple more independent secondaries. A (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of the Gravitee page

Hello. It appears that the Gravitee company page has been deleted by you because you marked it for speedy deletion. I missed the notification of this, and the page has since been deleted. I'd like to understand how we can change the page. It is a clone of existing pages that already exist on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what has been done wrong. Please advise. Brenthunter (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Question about غوّاص العلم

Do you consider غوّاص العلم bludgeoning their own talk page here Cinaroot  💬 09:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Users are generally allowed to treat their user page anyway they desire. For the record, I was sort of pleased that غوّاص العل spent so much time on their own talk. I was a bit disappointed when they came to ANI and covered the same data. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think they know how to behave themselves. You specifically asked them keep your response measured not by quantity, but tempered by common sense and good faith when responding in ANI. Cinaroot  💬 16:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I was pleasantly surprised that he/she made the ANI post at all. The post was useful because it summarised his/her way of thinking all in one place.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's finally solve the issue between me and other user.

You have recently blocked me for what you perceived as "harassment" of User:LordCollaboration. I want you to look into the situation between us to finally solve this.

His first edit on Talk:Estonia comes only after mine. Same situation can be seen on talk pages Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles and Talk:Kaja Kallas, at least those are the ones i have noticed personally. Later, when I was engaged in edit conflict and got blocked, User:ToBeFree stated if my changes will be reverted, the block is rightful, few minutes later, my changes were reverted by LordCollaborator, again despite having no history of editing that page before. This led me to believe, that because of the history of our pervious encounters this user is stalking me, clinging to every opportunity to get me blocked like some kind of personal vendetta. I had users who disagree with me following me around before, so this fact, combined with how few edits LordCollaboration has in their contributions, led me to suspect that they might be a sockpuppet. After expressing my concern on the notiboard, LordCollaboration contacted me on my page, asking me to stop talking about this. I agreed to that on a condition that he drops that perculiar behavior. Later User:Ivanvector told them how accusation of sockpuppetry could actually be considered harassment. In the meantime I was explaining the situation between us to a different user. LordCollaboration takes this as new accusation, and immediately notifies the Ivanvector. Recent case appeared once again of Talk:Estonia, when I added a missing country to the list of his examples, and once again they had immediately contacted the Ivanvector, without even specifying to them what's in that edit.

Anyways, I have a feeling that this user desperately tries to get me blocked because of my point of view or personal prejudices towards me, by stalking my activity and cherry picking moments he can frame as "violations". Please look into this in order to prevent our future disputes. Gigman (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello BusterD and Glebushko0703, the conversation on my talk page (section "Block") ended with this rollback. I highly recommend not letting this become another lengthy thread on yet another administrator's user talk page. This can go to ANI perhaps, but almost regardless of the content of the message above, nothing good is coming out of having the discussion here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is ANI worthy yet. Perhaps there's another way for arbitration? Gigman (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Advice - If you believe an established editor is a sock? Then open a SPI with 'evidence'. Meantime, stop with the direct/indirect insinuations. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Socking accusations are in the past, this user doesn't need socks. Stalking just to specifically be against me in discussion, in hope of provoking and getting me banned. That's the main problem i have with this individual. Gigman (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Glebushko0703, you continue to see bad faith in LordCollaboration's actions. Based on my reading, I find such allegations unjustified. IMHO you're doing all the work in getting yourself banned. Note I didn't block you from any place on Wikipedia except LordCollaboration's talk. If you can convince another admin to unblock you, I'd be impressed. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

A new personal attack (second part of this also looks like it)? It seems that last block for personal attacks (31 December 2025) did not solve anything. I suppose there are bigger issues with the partially blocked editor than just harassment, edit warring, accusations of sockpuppeting and personal attacks. – sbaio 18:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If you can convince another admin to unblock you – don't give them ideas ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Read again, preferably the Estonia talk page, specifically the latest RFC where I make my vote. LordCollaboration's comment is right beneath mine. Also they've even found me here. Note to all the inexperienced admins: hounding is a type of harassment Wikipedia:Harassment#hounding.

BTW "repeated inferences (with no credible evidence) the target page user is puppeting". That's your ban reasoning despite that I did not accuse them of sock puppetry this time. Gigman (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I have only seen Glebushko0703 harassing LordCollaboration, never the other way around, although I have not been following the Estonia/Estonian SSR dispute. ToBeFree told them to stop it in a recent prior discussion, I followed that up with a specific warning, and then siteblocked them on Dec 31 for still accusing other editors of being suspiciously linked but calling them "odd" instead of saying sockpuppetry directly, which I did not buy. Since then they seemed to have switched to a pattern of saying things that sound like "I'm not calling you a sock but I sure am thinking it". And even after BusterD's harassment partblock today they're still going on about other users being LordCollaboration's socks, still without evidence. Unless anyone here can think of a good reason why not, I am about to siteblock them indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Odd reffered to user following me, why are you all ignoring that fact? I don't think he's a sockpuppet for a long time. I think he follows me everywhere I go. Can we discuss this issue on the notice board? Gigman (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Accusations of political bias by Gigman ("you people") and suggestion that I am WP:NOTHERE . I am also opposed to being grouped to "the Estonian side"(link) as if this is some battleground. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok this is too much. I'm puting this issue on the Notice Board. Gigman (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I repeat one more time - in the infobox RFC there was an Estonian side (Estonia) and USSR side (Estonian SSR). Gigman (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

And I was on neither, despite being aware of the discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw your username somewhere around that topic, I thought you were involved with the Estonian side. I'm sorry. Gigman (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Glebushko0703, please go away from my talk page. You are acting a troublesome manner. This is not a space for you to continue whatever bad behaviors caused me to block you from Talk:LordCollaboration. Your continued presence guarantees some other admin will notice and separate you from my talkspace. BusterD (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

BusterD, I know you want to be done of this, but as you know I'm required to notify you that you've been mentioned in an ANI discussion related to this (actually Glebushko0703 should have, but I'm taking care of it). The thread is WP:ANI#Houndering suspicion. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Sanctuvium Draft:Darrell R. Fisher

Hello BusterD, the sandbox draft that you deleted was a training set that I prepared as I learn the process of creating content for Wikipedia. I am the content creator. Sanctuvium (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears a large language model is the content creator, not just you. Wikipedians do not allow unreviewed material created by LLMs. I do not choose to restore a draft so created. You may take your request to WP:Articles for undeletion if you wish. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of: Guillermo Rodríguez Navarrete

Hi @BusterD,

I noticed that the article Guillermo Rodríguez Navarrete - Wikipedia was deleted due to concerns about not establishing notability. I wanted to provide some context since I believe he meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies: he has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, including national media outlets, professional publications, and academic journals. He is recognized in the field of nutrition for his peer-reviewed scientific publications, conferences and seminars attended by hundreds of professionals, collaborations with universities such as UCAM, and contributions to public education on nutrition topics through television, media interviews, and workshops.

I believe the article clearly demonstrates the subject’s notability according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I would greatly appreciate it if you could reconsider restoring the page, or provide guidance on any further improvements needed to meet the requirements.

Thank you very much for your time and feedback. CarlesFort (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

My action on the page was purely administrative. The page was tagged as WP:A7 by another editor. I agreed the page met the tagged criteria. Since your query I've relooked at the deleted page, and I've decided to decline re-creation. You are welcome to take the title to WP:Requests for undeletion. BusterD (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

South Asian controversal articles?

@BusterD: Would you please consider whether the articles Harappan language and Indus script should be semipritected per WP:CT/SA? (I give a short motivation for my question at Talk:Harappan language#This subject is controversial and should be edited and sourced with great care. However, on the other hand, happy to say, I'm not aware of any particular case of abusal POW-editing of either article now; it's more a general worry.) Regards, JoergenB (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please take such needs to WP:Requests for protection to get prompt responses. BusterD (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

• News and notes: Wikipedia's 25th anniversary is here!
  Where does the time go?

• Special report: Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call
  The internet is booming. We are not.

• Serendipity: The WMF wants to buy you books!
  Really! A major triumph.

• WikiProject report: Time for a health check: the Vital Signs 2026 campaign
  The campaign to get all of our top-importance medical articles up to B-class or above.

• In the media: Fake Acting President Trump and a Wikipedia infobox
  D.J.T. assumes a new position.

• Community view: The inbox behind Wikipedia
  What the Volunteer Response Team actually does!

• Recent research: Art museums on Wikidata; comparing three comparisons of Grokipedia and Wikipedia
  And other research.

• Traffic report: Tonight I'm gonna rock you tonight
  A world in white gets underway.

• Comix: Oh come on man.
  Really?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Recent protection of an Afd

Hello, you recently ec-protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Freedom of Uselessness. Not sure it was appropriate nor necessary, given the very clear guidelines (”Article discussion pages, if they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions” and the topic is NOT even remotely contentious; ”Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection”...was it the case?). At least, amend your comment: I added a vote there with a temporary account and have nothing to do with other users expressing their views there. Please make it clear in your comment so as not to mislead further participants in the discussion, which might invalid its outcome. Indicating precisely who is double-voting according to you would have been the correct path and should still be done. A vague reference to ”the comments above are made by multiple temporary accounts (...) linked by the same IP” amounts to casting aspersions. Not saying certain users did not double-vote but at least one did not and your comment makes that at best unclear. Thank you. ~2026-47538-0 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Fram pinging you, for your information. ~2026-47538-0 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I must insist. You probably will save us some time if you indicate clearly that my temporary account used there (User talk:~2026-31842-5 ) is totally unrelated to the other IP addresses (not sure how many you have in mind). Thank you.@Svartner, who relisted the page and @Athanelar, who mentioned the IP issue (I am not on that campus, wherever it is), pinging you because of the protection, or I would have replied there. Thank you ~2026-47538-0 (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

I hope this message finds you well. Regarding this user to whom you handed a brief block, they appear to be continuing similar conduct in other articles diff1, diff2, while an account not active since October 2025 suddenly showed up to restore the user's edit. I do not wish to get involved, but it does not look normal. Can you have a quick look? SophiaJustice59 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

"This user" is here. I'm not sure what do you mean by "similar conduct", the brief ban in question was caused by the harassment of one particular user. If you're implying that this user is my sockpuppet, you can do an IP check. I have no idea who's that and I didn't ask them to revert my changes, since I've organized the discussion on the talk page earlier.

BusterD, while you'll be at it, can you also check ~2026-57214-4, who suddenly appeared out of nowhere right after SophiaJustice59's edits and reverted my change. Gigman (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The temporary account reverted yours and added to the section another article, whose relevance I do not agree with. I did not know that article exists until the temporary account added it in their edit. It is @TylerBurden who disagrees with your removal. I have not taken a clear stance on this. You may wish to focus on the Talk page discussion with TylerBurden, who intimated to you that You seem to have failed to WP:AGF here and labelled simply adding relevant articles to a see also section "clearly pov:push". There is nothing neutral about removing relevant articles from a see also section, if you feel like other ones are a good fit, you can simply add them in as well. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that temporary account was created on the same day as edits were undone (with no summaries left), which led to other user undoing my changes as "unexplained" (while they were not). I've initiated the discussion with the user long before their edit was reverted. There's no need to cast aspersions.Gigman (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have changed the link to "similar conduct". So what exactly do you mean by by that? Assuming bad faith, or edit warring, or something else?

In first diff undos were the way to establish a consensus without starting any side discussions (which neither of us wanted) and it ended sucesfully. Second diff was an attempt to repeat something similar, but when I understood that consensus might take a big discussion I've transferred it to a talk page.

Can you explain what point are you trying to make? Gigman (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It is a manual mistake. I have reverted it. You can focus on your discussion on that Talk page. I may not involve myself in that discussion as there are other articles I am interested in. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Still, can you please provide an explanation of "similar conduct". Because so far I don't see any violations apart from reffering to a contested "see also" content as "pov:push", yet your message to BusterD is phrased like I'm ignoring his warning. Gigman (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The two of you should go elsewhere and apply at the appropriate noticeboard. I'm not going to insert myself in your dispute. Both of you should abandon appealing to me on my talk, because this will be my only response to this thread (unless I need to call another sysop and have this thread stopped). BusterD (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 237, January 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 review four books Op-ed: Nick-D on the Stanley Military Cemetery in Hong Kong Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2025
  Everybody had a hard year, everybody had a good time.

• News and notes: Good news... but also bad news for the Public Domain
  Benvenuto Betty Boop, arrivederci Italian Photos.

• News from Diff: Solving puzzles together
  Maryana Iskander says farewell.

• In the media: Every view on the 25th anniversary of everything
  Media about hard-core nerds, a place with paragraphs, baby globes, and wikipedes.

• Comix: Perspectives
  Everybody has one.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Glebushko0703

Hello, you sanctioned the editor in question for repeated inferences (with no credible evidence) the target page user is puppeting; stay away from LordCollaboration or this block might be broadened. He claimed he didn't accuse LC of sockpuppetry back then, which means your block was unjustified. Can you provide diffs? Kelob2678 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Tora-Con

Thank you for cleaning that AFD up so the process can get underway. That IP editor has started another AFD that isn't setup correctly at Ido Kedar. Esw01407 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I've done the first; since the temporary account is plunging into such a deep pond, I'm going to let another neutral admin identify and deal with the second. More eyes are more good in such cases. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Bywater Article deletion

I understand that you were the administrator who deleted my article. I was under the assumption that the article would remain in draft form and I would get feedback to enable me to make edits before it would be accepted for publication. This was the previous practise when I produced edits for Wikipedia a while ago. It seems this has changed and I would like the article reinstated to my drafts/sandbox so I can correct the impression that it is promotion/advertising.

As I have said to the other reviewer involved, I don't believe you or they looked beyond the first paragraph to the main content. There are some significant gaps in the area of auditor competence articles that I am looking to fill. JPaulSimpson (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk page watcher here; I agree with the deletion, the draft was wholly promotional and unsalvageable. I did look at the whole thing, but I didn't have to get past "is the UK’s leading provider of certified training and consultancy for management systems and business improvement." to see that it was promotional.

If you work for them, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you for joining the discussion. Glad you read the whole thing. You have commented on line 1. Any comments on the rest of the text?

I don't agree it is unsalvageable. My wish to have the article reinstated as a draft is to correct the promotional piece and save having to reinstate all the internal and external links, citations and references.

As I posted in my reply to the person who originally flagged the page and the administrator who permanently deleted the page, I had assumed from the article I had read that my draft would remain as a draft and I would get feedback. This didn't happen. Now it appears my work is lost.

Whatever happened to 'assuming good faith'?

Sheesh JPaulSimpson (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@JPaulSimpson The piece of WP:AGF that you’re missing here is that it’s a two-way street. Making obvious promotional edits is a demonstration of bad faith. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I get the two-way thing. Again I don't think I have missed anything. You seem to have ignored my explanation that the article was supposed to stay as draft but, for some reason was published and immediately deleted (correctly, IMHO). So you're doubling down on the assumption of bad faith? All I want is my work back so I can fix it. As this seems not to be possible as @BusterD is on radio silence I will have to go and recreate it.

I'll try to find a reviewer/Administrator that is helpful and see how I can get a review before a trigger-happy deletion. I'm sure there are some out there who assume good faith.

JPaulSimpson (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Edited for traceability JPaulSimpson (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I will not help you, but you are welcome to seek resolution at WP:Requests for undeletion. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Article deletion still in draft

Hello, you recently deleted my draft. Can you please recover it as I would like to improve it and make changes. I appreciate that as I work for the company, which I disclosed that it would look promotional, but I had been seeking advice on how to make it neutral and had planned to work on it. It took me such a long time adding all those references from different sources so I think I had a good start. ~2026-97170-7 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Personal User Page

Hello, I noticed you deleted my user page under G11. I’d like to understand what part of it was considered promotional so I don’t repeat the mistake. Thank you. Ashfaqifaz (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

• In the media: Global powers see Wikipedia as fundamental target for manipulation
  Attempted Wikipedia shenanigans apparent from Epstein, AI, various governments.

• News and notes: Discussions open for the next WMF Annual Plan
  Plus, WikiFlix going places, steady progress on older FAs and other news from the Wikimedia world.

• Serendipity: Maintenance crews continue to slog through Wikipedia's oldest Featured Articles
  Hundreds of old FAs have been triaged since project began, but thousands remain — and they need reviewers.

• Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
  The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.

• Technology report: Wikidata Graph Split and how we address major challenges
  A personal perspective on a major update to the Wikimedia social machine.

• Traffic report: Deaths, killings, films, and the Olympics
  I'll have the usual!

• Opinion: Incoming Incurables
  A poem for Wikipedia Day 2026.

• Crossword: Pop quiz
  Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

• Comix: herculean
  efforts.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect "Speedy deletion" of user MusicBioContributor page

Afternoon BusterD, I am user "MusicBioContributor", and I would like to dispute the deletion of my wiki page. Firstly, I need to state that the page I was creating was for someone else, not myself. I used third person language to indicate this.

I was informed that my page was deleted due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion in user space." I would like to know exactly what content, language, pictures and/or words was considered promotional, so I won't repeat the mistake again. Lastly, how do I recover my original Wiki page? Can you reverse the deletion, or do I have to create a new page?

Thank you!🙂

- MusicBioContributor (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

After giving the deleted sandbox a re-look, I feel pretty comfortable with this speedy deletion of an unsourced biography of a living person. Wikipedia is not social media. The difference is on social media the subject gets to say whatever they want about themself. On Wikipedia we only allow sources which reflect what others say about the subject. Come back to me with three links (or print documents) which meet the notability standard for independent reliable sources and then we'll talk about musicians. You have my endorsement to pursue your case at WP:Requests for undeletion if you disagree. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Request to Restore Draft: John O'Leary (CEO)

Hello,

Would you please restore the draft of John O'Leary (CEO) to my sandbox for revisions? This is the first wikipedia article I have attempted to draft, and I have been working with several different approvers over the course of nearly a year trying to improve it to be within the guidelines. I'm OK if it's not ready for primetime yet, but I hate to lose all of the editing history.

Thanks for reviewing my request! Rdothodgson (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

In the moment, I concurred with the good faith WP:G11 tag by another wikipedian, then I deleted the draft purely as an administrative task. After reading the deleted page history of Draft: John O'Leary, I'm going to decline your request to restore the draft. This subject's page has been created three times; each page creator has arrived on en.wikipedia solely to insert this businessman's personal biography. Pretty obvious connected editing, if not undisclosed paid editing. I am required to ask: Are you compensated in any way to create this page? If so you are required to disclose your involvement on your user page and on the draft itself. After you do disclose any association, paid or otherwise, you are welcome to take this page subject to WP:Requests for undeletion where an uninvolved administrator can check over my actions and address your specific concern. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi BusterD - thanks for the quick response!

I can confirm that I am NOT in any way compensated to create this page. That’s one of the reasons why it typically takes me several months to make any edits any time I receive feedback. I’m not aware of any other authors attempting to publish an article on John O’Leary - it’s something I’ve poured a tremendous amount of free time into over the past year, and I’m truthfully devastated at the complete loss of editing history, as I try to learn how to publish on Wikipedia.

If there’s a way for you to reverse the deletion, I’d humbly request for your reconsideration. If the request for un deletion (which you linked) is the only process, I’m glad to work through that channel.

Thanks again! ~2026-12299-20 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry - that last response was from me - I didn’t realize I wasn’t logged in and am not sure how to edit that reply as a guest (I didn’t know I could post a comment if I wasn’t signed in!) Rdothodgson (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:Requests for undeletion is the appropriate place to make your case. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - I just wanted to confirm that this is the appropriate spot, as the page you reference notes that it is NOT intended to dispute pages flagged for speedy deletion under G11 Rdothodgson (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. In this case, you'll need to make a case at deletion review BusterD (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 238, February 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D review four works Op-ed: GGOTCC discusses the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for restoration of Draft:Martin T. C. Jenter

Hello BusterD,

I understand that Draft:Martin T. C. Jenter was deleted under G15 due to malformed citation artifacts (WP:OAICITE). Those artifacts were formatting remnants from AI-assisted drafting and were not intended as fabricated references. I had already begun replacing them with standard {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help) templates referencing verifiable newspaper sources (New York Times, Washington Herald, The Record, etc.).

The subject is supported by multiple independent contemporaneous sources, including national coverage. I would appreciate it if the draft could be restored to my userspace so I can ensure all citations fully conform to Wikipedia standards before resubmitting.

Thank you for your time. RjSheffield (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to restore this draft upon your request. I don't feel good about it, however. Let me explain. While things aren't in any way settled, Wikipedia only has one rule about LLMs at this time. Don't use it to create pagespace. The issue is not technical; the issue is attribution, which as a professional writer you must certainly understand. When I hit the publish changes button below the edit window, I agree to the Terms of Use, and [I] irrevocably agree to release [my] contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. My contribution, not that of large language model. I can see why using such a model might make it convenient to assemble sources and create a draft. But even after the cites are fixed, this draft has all the tell-tales of LLMs. Readers will recognize the difference (and then react to it) without knowing for certain. So please re-write the draft in your own words. Then when you publish, your screenname is listed, not the software you used. Don't gift LLMs your attribution. Don't expect wikipedians to be happy about it. Please. BusterD (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You're too kind. I would have advised to start over, following WP:BACKWARD. Doing that, one can use an AI to help find sources, and even summarize them, but writing the article should be one's own work. It's similar to how a judge writes an opinion: he may have assistants to perform legal research and write briefs (which he could do himself but having assistants makes it more efficient) but the final opinion is written by him. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

RigsTech34

As of this most recent block appeal, I'm inclined to loosen the block, but not remove it completely, because as stated earlier on the talk page it's too late for verbal assurances. I would block page creations and moves in mainspace, leaving the editor free to create AFC drafts and edit pages already in mainspace. This would give the editor a chance to establish a record of productive edits while still disallowing the past rampant creation of substandard BLP articles. What do you think? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Who? After clicking around I see someone I blocked who has chosen a new screenname. I have no problems with the outline of changes to the block you described. I would take it as a favor if you chose to reduce the block, since I went way out on a limb for this user last go round. I don't want to signal this is between them and myself. This, as you and I certainly agree, is between RigsTech34 and the pillars, policies and guidelines of our project. They are technically proficient, but will they master themselves? We won't know until we let them try again. BusterD (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I was going to take the action and reduce the block, but not if you objected. Based on the editor's past inability to follow directions, I wouldn't be comfortable with unblocking completely. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The deed is done. Unblocked without the ability to create or move pages in mainspace. Similar to the WP:Standard offer, the editor can appeal this in six months. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

A 'fix'

Hello friend,

You recently told me to ping you if I "get into a fix".

If you are so interested, I would like to ask you to look over here, with some specific example of my issue being here and here.

I will share with you, that following the previous altercation I have tried to be very careful, and as prim and proper as humanly possible. I think that I have given them every chance to follow policy, and that they show it utter contempt, not allowing me to edit and cooperate normally. And it seems like there are always people willing to show up, defend them and attack me, while ignoring policy, and not even trying to address specific incidents. Like last time, when people came to pile on, and for example this person that wrote obviously false things about me in an (ultimately successful) attempt to ban me off the site, and repeatedly refused to take it back when faced with the falsehood of their words, facing no repercussions for it.

My faith in this system continues to dwindle for now, in all honesty. I hope to find reasons yet to start gaining some of it back, but idk. I feel like I'm being gaslit over there, but if you tell me that you support the criticism they are making over there and try to explain it to me, I will take it very seriously.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I genuinely do not understand it. I would genuinely appreciate an explanation beyond what you wrote here, because I think (hope) that you can tell that I'm coming at this in good faith.

I wanted to keep editing that subject, which was not forbidden to me. I was told to take care.

I took a lot of care. I made sure to edit far more slowly, to explain everything meticulously but concisely, and to never continue editing on a specific matter if it was disputed, instead always seeking and waiting for a discussion towards consensus to be had.

When my edits were changed without explanation, was that not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, which says that "All edits should be explained"?

Given that situation, was the appropriate respond from myself not going to their personal talk page and requesting that they explain the edit?

When they repeatedly refused to explain the edits, claimed that one of them wasn't even contentious, and then cast aspersions against me (which no one seems interested in even talking about, let alone deny or confirm), was I not supposed to open a complaint?

I genuinely struggle to understand how I am the one who "consistently demonstrates lack of understanding of basic policy and/or willingness to follow it". Which policy did I not follow?

Trying to put all emotion aside and look at this rationally, I just don't see anyone showing that I'm the one not following policy, and that they are following policy.

Would genuinely appreciate you taking the time to walk me through this, because I'm at a loss.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for re-examine a draft that was previously prematurly classified as a Draft:Ari Erev

Hi BusterD,

Yesterday, while I was working on a very early version of draft:Ari Erev (in the drafts workspace) it was deleted. I continued my work in user namespace, and now, Now, I have a much better version, that I believe should pass initial check.

When trying to submit this much better version to the draftspace, I got a message that recommend I talk to you before, as you were the one who deleted it in the first place, Yesterday morning.

The new draft is now at: User:Pablo Kirtchuk/sandbox

Should I submit it to the draft space as is? Or maybe you want to take a look at it before that?

Thanks! Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo Kirtchuk (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

• Interview: Bernadette Meehan, new Wikimedia Foundation CEO
  Part 2.

• News and notes: Security testing unleashes computer worm on Meta-wiki
  Dormant worm awakes; a sketchy archiving site struck; ether burns.

• Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
  A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?

• In the media: Indonesian government blocks Wikimedia logins; archive site scoured from Wikipedia after owner runs malware
  As well as controversy over LLM translations.

• Recent research: To wiki, perchance to groki
  Comparisons continue.

• Obituary: Madhav Gadgil, Fredrick Brennan, Mark Miller, Chip Berlet
  Rest in peace.

• Opinion: Interface administrators and trusting trust
  Potential attacks are the logical consequence of giving a group of users unlimited control over JavaScript.

• Technology report: English Wikipedia deprecates archive.today after DDoS against blog, altered content
  After the archive site launched a DDoS campaign against a small blog in January 2026, a request for comment was started, with consensus to deprecate the site used almost 700 thousand times.

• Op-ed: Why is "Trypsin-sensitive photosynthetic activities in chloroplast membranes" cited in "List of tallest buildings in Chicago"?
  The answer is slop.

• Essay: The pursuit of a button click
  Volunteering for Wikipedia has its rewards. The thank-button, for example.

• In focus: Short descriptions: One year later
  A discussion of the challenge set forth to the Wikipedia community one year ago!

• WikiProject report: Unreferenced articles backlog drive
  Unreferenced articles in English Wikipedia - help us in the backlog drive!

• Community view: Speaking of planning ...
  The WMF planning process is underway.

• Traffic report: Over the mountain, kissing silver inlaid clouds
  Death and the Winter Olympics.

• Crossword: "It will never happen"
  Want to take a break?

• Comix: BRIEn't
  Or is it.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ademola Adenle

Hello, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could tell me if this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ademola_Adenle#) has been changed all that much from when you deleted it. I am reviewing it currently, and I wanted to ask you, as you are the one who deleted it before it was recreated by the same person. Cheers, 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 22:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This new work does not look like the earlier deleted draft. None of the sources in the original draft met INDEPENDENCE, for example; I see three arguably RSs in this new version. I'll deign not to weigh in on notability, but this current draft and the deleted draft bear no resemblance. This one seems tight and cited, as if somebody applied the feedback they received in deletion. Thanks for your volunteering to review! I very much appreciate your query and am delighted to help in any way I can. BusterD (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 239, March 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three recent works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it have been appropriate for me to close this AfD?

Hello there BusterD. You just speedily deleted Prateek Gupta under G15, but the AfD is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prateek Gupta (2nd nomination). Would it have been appropriate for me, as a non-admin, to close the discussion (if I had not been involved in the discussion)? I know that WP:NACD says that non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages, but I am unsure of how that applies to when the page has already been deleted. Both of the voters (one of them was me, see next paragraph) in the discussion endorsed deletion (both in general and under G15), so your deletion was in line with the consensus that was forming.

But as I write this, I also realize that it would have been inappropriate for me to close this AfD because I was involved in the discussion. So instead I'll ask in the general sense (and rephrase the previous paragraph, hopefully it doesn't come out as too confusing), if I had not been involved would it then have been appropriate for me to close the AfD after the article had been deleted? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Any previously uninvolved user in good standing is able to close obvious AFD discussions; it's wise to avoid closing if you think such a close might be controversial (or if you don't have the permissions to act on a close, like a delete or merge outcome). BusterD (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Pine Pine Kingdom False Deletion

Hello there BusterD, you deleted Pine Pine Kingdom under G3, for hoaxes since there wasn't enough information cites, and the article was deleted... while I was adding the sources in. As well as 'vandalism' on my own draft. I could see the logic if it was an article, but it was a draft that wasn't even submitted for review, so I find it no sense that it was deleted while still being built, especially, since only I can view the draft. Can you reopen the page so I can finish editing in the sources (as I saved it for last) and bear with me since I'm new and still trying to figure out how this works. Cheers!

Did you mean Draft:Pine Pine Kingdom? The micro-nation on Escolar Drive? Please present to me three reliable sources which meet the criteria of 1) independence and 2) significant coverage, and I'll consider such a request. Wikipedia is not your social media promotional outlet. BusterD (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MakeFortGreatAgain!: While Buster is right that the micronation probably doesn't have the coverage to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, I'd be happy to email you a copy of what was in the article if you'd like it back for personal use :) [don't give me your email address! register one in your settings and make sure you have user emailing enabled, and I'll be able to send it to you through here.] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry BusterD, didn't respond for a month since I was busy with stuff, but my 3 sites sources are, Irvine High website, El Vaquero newspaper (school news), Pine Pine Kingdom website, iTV (school television program), and many individual pictures and videos. It's kinda hard to cite them into this (especially the pictures and videos) so I ask to reopen it so that I can add them in and then you can approve after. Also the micronation isn't mine, it's a friend's, I'm just making about it to report on local stuff to keep it public for people to read about the history and to start my Wikipedia experience in helping the site, (I'm thinking of making some on local neighborhoods later) I think thats all, have a good day!

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Novels by Gail Godwin has been nominated for deletion

Category:Novels by Gail Godwin has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ScalarFactor (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2026

• News and notes: Entirety of Wikinews to be shut down
  All languages to be shut down in May; first AI agent blocked; new name for AfD?

• In the media: AI ban, newspapers disrupt archiving; and antisemitism complaints
  Perennial challenges with AI, demographic representation, and attacks from people buying media influence.

• Community view: Videos from WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC
  In attendees' own words.

• Disinformation report: Cleaning up after Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Nygard, and Mohamed Al-Fayed
  Countering the edits of the rich and dangerous.

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC review
  About the conference series, and this conference particularly.

• Obituary: Dr. Subas Chandra Rout
  Rest in peace.

• Traffic report: Call in the dogs of war, soldier of fortune
  Though of course the picture needs to be Chuck Norris...

• Gallery: Canadian Rangers participate in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia
  Analogies between how Wikipedia works and how Canada works.

• Comix: n00bsitting
  ...!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Query about deleted file that I'm sure had rationale on it when I uploaded.

Hi, I've just come back after a while away and found that File:Ailsa Garland.png had been deleted by yourself. I am very surprised though that it didn't have justification, because I do remember taking great care with the images I sourced to ensure that they all met the regulations and had the appropriate Non-Free Biog Pic rationale on them. I do remember it was extremely difficult to find any image of the subject and taking great care to make sure the picture was low-resolution and sized appropriately, so it seems rather unlike me to have neglected to add the rationale at the same time - especially as I must have created dozens of these all with a rationale. I think it was an early upload though, so I may well have missed it. If the edit history shows I didn't do so, then I clearly didn't, but it seems improbable. Can you please check? Mabalu (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for

An editor has asked for a deletion review of . Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lyricalliberty (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi BusterD - hope I'm doing this correctly, trying to follow Wiki's guidelines.

The subject meets the Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) through multiple instances of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources.

Billboard provides industry-recognized coverage of the artist, including discussion of commercial performance and independent success: https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/five-times-august-1046687/. Also reports he's the first independent artist to have an album distributed at Walmart.

CBS News offers mainstream editorial coverage of the subject’s career, including exposure through placements on major television programs, representing non-trivial independent discussion: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-21-03-2008/.

Additionally, PopMatters published a full-length critical review of the artist’s album, providing substantive analysis of the subject’s work and positioning within the music landscape: https://www.popmatters.com/five-times-august-brighter-side-2496171118.html.

Further independent coverage is provided by the Dallas Observer, which discusses the subject’s media presence and music career: https://www.dallasobserver.com/uncategorized/five-times-august-pops-up-on-the-real-world-which-is-far-less-of-a-big-deal-than-it-sounds-7078905.

These sources are independent of the subject, editorial in nature, and provide more than trivial mention, collectively satisfying WP:GNG. The prior deletion appears to have undervalued the depth and diversity of available sourcing.

I'm happy to provide more articles but these seem to suffice the standards. Lyricalliberty (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Brad Skistimas

Is Five Times August a stage name or pseudonym used by this person? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. This is established by the sources presented at DRV, the redirect's deletion by User:Explicit, and in the deleted article itself. User:FiveTimesAugust was also a contributor to the article and related files. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

G5 of blocked sockpuppet GatewayPolitics's articles

Hi BusterD. I noticed you nominated articles by blocked sockpuppet GatewayPolitics for deletion per WP:G5. But some of them had substantial edits by others, like this. I'll leave the rest for another admin to review, but is it possible to cull these G5 nominations so that they only include articles where GatewayPolitics was the sole main contributor? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll go back through them, but in each case the pagecreator was a demonstrated sockpuppet, and by G5 standards the pages are subject to scrutiny for other connected accounts. There's a reason why I tagged them and not deleted them myself. It's a boatload of work though. I felt a bit bad about it as I tagged. On the other hand, this is one of the many cases I've found in which pages were apparently created to demonstrate a particular feeling about a particular American political party. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, and good call on tagging them instead of deleting them yourself. I did delete some where the sockpuppet was the only main contributor. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

So far I'm seeing 85-98% in most cases. Frankly, I've been around a while and this is the first time I rememeber doing such a mass tagging myself. Responded to mass taggings yes, but performed one, no. Thanks for keeping my eyes on the ball. Plenty of mistakes I haven't yet made... BusterD (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed tags from several articles where GP's authorship was lower than 80%. Most of these pages have very few edits at all. It appears User:Significa liberdade is following up on many of these tags (thanks, bud!). I'm sure I missed one or two. The vast majority of these tags are well-founded G5s. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for

An editor has asked for a deletion review of . Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lyricalliberty (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Buster D: I rewrote the deletion request in my own writing. Lyricalliberty (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Jupiter

Hi BusterD, three days ago, you happened to change the semi-protection duration for the Jupiter article from indefinite to expire in two days, even though the protection request was for extended confirmed protection. Did you intend to try unprotecting this article 15 years since the last protection was applied (hence why you mentioned "No protection history in last ten years"), or did you not realize that the article was already indefinitely semi-protected before? In any case, the article was semi-protected indefinitely again following this request, stating that removing the semi-protection was an accident. BriDash9000 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

My truncating the protection period was an error. I see The Bushranger has repaired this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Whatever, I knew the protection duration change was most likely an accident. Something similar also happened to the African Americans article; the indefinite semi-protection for that article was almost lost after the protection duration was changed to expire following this request (also requesting for extended confirmed protection), though everything was fixed following this discussion and this request I made to restore the indefinite semi-protection. BriDash9000 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 240, April 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

• News and notes: Six Serbian Wikipedia editors banned following controversy about political bias
  Plus, new bans for AI-generated content in place, a new drop in active admins, pranks on pranks, May admin election, and other news from the Wikimedia world.

• In the media: Could Wikipedia be involved in Massachusetts' proposed social media ban for minors?
  Another regulate-the-internet attempt casts a wide net.

• Gallery: March equinox
  The progression of seasons in March.

• Traffic report: Time to change my galaxy in case, we outta space!
  What catches the reader's eye? Death and film, per usual, and a loop around the moon per unusual.

• Comix: Of skirts and articles
  When significant coverage is only skin deep.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Previous SD reappeared

Hi, not sure how best to deal with this! You previously deleted GO Voyages after I nominated it for speedy deletion under A7. The editor has now recreated the article despite being refused their Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_421#h-Go_Voyages-20260414141000 request for undeletion. It seems more references have been added now but there still seems to be no evidence of importance or notability - not sure how to proceed here as WP:G4 does not apply to articles that were previously deleted via SD. Orange sticker (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Same pagecreator. I'll tag the talk with a warning about UPE. If they'd asked I might have draftified their last version, but this edition doesn't seem to stray from the formula. In spite of my instincts, I'm draftifying and I've locked the pagespace so the page can't be moved to the previous target name without help. So they can improve all they want, they just can't publish without consensus. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the alert (ping) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Naeem Khan (diplomat). I had to make a run out of town and returned at 12 AM, so I didn't see it until this morning. I am satisfied with the results. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC closure

Thanks for your closure of the AfD RfC! Could you clarify whether there's consensus against renaming or no consensus? FaviFake (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! FaviFake (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

And thus ends our long national nightmare. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

We'll still have the nightmares, guys. I merely suggested we wait to revisit this, based on the firm reluctance of opposers. I imagine those who drove the change will likewise attempt to drive the retitling, but some wikipedians are geezers and prefer incremental change. The idiom "discussion" doesn't appear to satisfy those who view AfD as more rugged terrain and (for want of a better word) more determinative. BusterD (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Blue yacht

Hello, you deleted the article I wrote about Blue. It's the world's 5th longest yacht, I thought this would make it significant. Also I did not write the article to promote or advertise the boat, I'm only interested in megayachts, I don't see how what I wrote could be viewed as spam. 船好き (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I have restored it to draft space at Draft: Blue (yacht). To my eyes all these sources look like brochures for the vessel. I've asked more expert eyes to look this over. You are welcome to improve it in draftspace for now. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason that my article needs to stay in draft but the others in List of motor yachts by length are ok? Those were the examples I followed. For example, I think my article has more sources than the article about the second longest yacht in the world Fulk Al Salamah which I did not write or is there something that I am not understanding? 船好き (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I won't/can't explain why other drafts (or articles) are worse (or better) than yours. That's not even a relevant discussion. I'm looking at YOUR draft and have explained my concern with the catalogue-like sources. I have since added an articles for creation tag and submitted this draft for review. Someone uninvolved will come along and either approve it or provide better feedback. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Plastic Free July - Draft

Hi @[[User:BusterD|BusterD] Thanks for the feedback on the first draft of the Plastic Free July article. I've redrafted it to address the points you flagged. It's more succinct, too. I'll post it in my Sandbox now, and I've let my mentor know about the progress so they can make editorial suggestions when they have time.

In keeping with the COI policy, please note that I have drafted this article in a voluntary capacity. Although I am an independent consultant who occasionally receives a nominal payment for my services, my business model includes pro-bono support for environmental and performing arts not-for-profit organisations. GreenMarginalia (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Mistaken Deletion of Draft:Polytoria

Hello! I believe you have mistakenly deleted my page. I was transferring an actual draft that I gave up and had recently overwritten on, to my sandbox and was not trying to make it public. Delete logs show it being transferred to my sandbox, however it was still deleted for being an alledged hoax. If possible could you restore it under my sandbox. Thanks! Sarranidian (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

on second notice another wikipedian moved it back due to me not adding a redirect, despite it not being needed due to it being unrelated and me making it a personal sandbox (or so I think). I did not intend for it to be under the Polytoria draft Sarranidian (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with your deletion of Draft:Adamson Middle School, have recreated it, please re-delete without notifying me

Hi BusterD,

Just what is says on the can (American English) or Just what is says on the tin (British English).

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why we're redirecting a draft, but if I missed a step, I appreciate your fixing it. BusterD (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Page to clear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Fawaz#Biography ~2026-26508-36 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

JoeyC's Roadhouse

Hi BusterD. There's an ongoing deletion discussion for this page, but it is now showing as deleted and giving your name. Any idea what's happened?

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Mikeycdiamond, the page creator of Joey C's Roadhouse tagged the page as G7 four hours after it was brought to AFD, and so I deleted it as such. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

How strange, I wonder why they did that? Thanks for the explanation.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's beyond my remit. But FYI WP:GEOSCOPE refers to events, not businesses or people. My reading of the sources is that the subject was borderline notable. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I G7ed the article because, after I read the rational, I saw the article as not notable. WP:G7 states the an article being G7ed is an agreement by the author of the deletion rational. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Mikey.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Restoration request: Muhammad Faisal Maqsood

The article on Muhammad Faisal Maqsood was deleted under CSD G11. I acknowledge that earlier versions contained promotional and résumé-like content.

I have prepared a substantially rewritten neutral stub version that removes all promotional language, detailed career timelines, self-published materials, and non-encyclopedic details. Only basic verifiable facts remain (name, native name, birth place, education, and a one-sentence occupation statement), along with the template.

I request that the deleted page be restored to Draft:Muhammad Faisal Maqsood (or to my userspace/sandbox) so I can further refine it in draft space before any potential mainspace move. This will allow proper addressing of neutrality and sourcing concerns without recreating in mainspace.

Thank you for your time. Faisalmaqsood8899 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Faisalmaqsood8899: after re-reading the deleted User:Faisalmaqsood8899/sandbox, I'm going to decline your request to restore the draft. Wikipedia is not social media, and even if verified (applied sources are quite poor) there's no assertion of notability made whatsoever. The subject is an IT tech. The article I read would fail any review or succumb to any deletion process. This topic has been G11 deleted by another admin at Muhammad Faisal Maqsood. I can't stop you from recreating your draft, but if you can't take the advice from two trusted servants of the pedia, good luck to you. BusterD (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Footrot page deletion

Thank you for your message on Walloon Wiktionary. I answered briefly on deletion page.

I think the links on books are not the same pages as these of my paper books. I 'll look at that in July, when I 'll have access to my library. But I remember the sentence of Lameness of cattle when Mr Greenough (who I have encountered some times in the 1980's) warned on the lack of precision of that word, link to "panaris" in French.

Sincerely yours Lucyin (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Extended Confirmed - Spirit Airlines

If possible, can you remove Exteneded Confirmed Editing on Spirit Airlines? The is/was issue is gone as some news sources were inconclusive and some were new and one editor kept reversing edits while there was sources that Spirit was ceased. Ryanaviator (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Reduced to autoconfirmed for two days. Based on what we've seen I feel a certain amount of garbage will creep in, and while the article is about a corporation, it's also about a concerning current event. BusterD (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

alright thanks for the help, yea it's a little weird since winding down meant slowing down ops, but then major news sources called it ceasing operations, very hectic, but we can all say RIP spirit airlines Ryanaviator (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
• The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
• Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
• Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Mistaken deletion of Looksmax.org

I think you deleted this by mistake, it was a redirect to Looksmaxxing and the forum is mentioned in the history section of the article. QuantumNihilist (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm declining your request. Merely being once mentioned (with zero citations) doesn't render the subject worthy of a redirect. You are welcome to take this matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review for further consideration. BusterD (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

the source which mentions it is here , Looksmax.org is mentioned multiple times within it. QuantumNihilist (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Stop your protection requests" for pages of different versions of Masked Singer

No offense, but there are idiots who have been tampering with Wikipedia pages for different versions of Masked Singer for months, even years. I've been racking my brains correcting these errors, and I'm certainly not the only one. And you're writing to tell me to stop my protection requests? What's your logic? You'd be better off blocking these people's accounts instead of lecturing me. Msk Singr (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

None of the nominated pages were under current or sustained attack lately, which are requirements for applying page protection. Perhaps the reason for my tone is that three different admins have declined your requests today; three separate sysops are declining your requests giving identical feedback to you. We don't commonly mass protect pages pre-emptively (or for incidents long in the past). If the pages have previously been handled badly, fix them yourself or please bring it to talk page attention so others are made aware. BusterD (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, certainly much better than you. You have allowed the copyright protection for the pages of the American version of Masked Singer (seasons 1 and 2), so why not the pages I suggested? Msk Singr (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying the pages don't qualify for protection, because they aren't currently under attack and they are not under longterm abuse. Seasons 1 and 2 articles have seen recent vandalism, and so they were protected by another admin. Since you clearly know better than I, you don't need my help. BusterD (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (5 May 2026)

Hello BusterD,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 10:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC) (Persecution of Kurds)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding the creation protection of Draft:Advantech

Dear BusterD,

I am writing to you regarding the "extended connfirmed access" protection currently placed on Draft Advantech.

I completely understand and respect your decision to protect the page following previous attempts violated G11 & G12. I appologize for the previous non-compliant submission, which didnt meet the cimunity's standards.

I sincerely believe the "Advantech" subject meetsd the Notability standard, and i will establish a high-quality, neutral and stable entry that serves the public interest.

I wolud like to kindly ask if you would consider lift the creation protection to allow me to develop a new draft within the Draft namspace. Or, if you prefer, I can develop the content first in my user sandbox and invite you(or any otheron) to review it before it is moved to the Draft or submited.

~~~ Jake19920118 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Low Carbon Hub deletion query

Hello BusterD, I'm writing regarding your deletion of Low Carbon Hub under G11 and A7. I'd like to understand your reasoning and discuss whether a deletion review would be appropriate.

The article cited multiple independent sources including a dedicated feature in The Guardian (October 2024), The Sunday Times (January 2023), Solar Power Portal, PV Magazine, and Co-operative News. The subject holds several UK firsts in community energy including the UK's first community-owned co-located battery energy storage system.

The article went through AfC and was accepted by a reviewer.

I declared my paid editing status and conflict of interest in full before submitting. I'd welcome your thoughts before pursuing a formal deletion review.

Low Carbon G (talk) ~2026-27308-30 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Blue (yacht) has been accepted

Blue (yacht), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

• See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

• Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

• Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Request to restore to draft: Eduardo Chaillo

Hello, I am looking to restore the page Eduardo Chaillo that was deleted on 5/11/26. I understand it was deleted under G11 Promotional Language but it was deleted before I could look at it again from a different lens. The article was approved by another editor 5 months ago, so it's not fresh on my mind. I would like to revisit and attempt a more neutral writing style since I did significant research to learn more about this topic and there were over 50 references (which included news sources that are typically deemed reliable such as LA Times, El Economista, Forbes, CNN, Channel 9 News, etc).

I initially drafted directly in my sandbox for the development, so I do not have a copy of all the references. There was a lot of research that went into capturing those references and documenting the sources. Once I review the sources cited, I can see what additional resources are needed to clarify notability and establish a more neutral writing style. I understand it will likely need to be moved back to the sandbox for this to happen. ArtSpaz (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

User:ArtSpaz: I've reread the article I deleted as a valid G11, and chosen to reconsider this for a day before responding. I find myself in a pickle. This is a biography of a living person. I'm unable to draftify the article I just deleted because it's previously been approved then promoted from draftspace. My options (as I see them) are to 1) delete the page or 2) userfy (relocate to your userspace as a draft). In my opinion the article I deleted was written from a perspective that was wildly inappropriate. Not only was the prose quite puffy with praise (examples: ...who has been recognized for his work strengthening the competitiveness of destinations across Latin America...; ...he positioned Mexico as a leading international destination for...; ...taking a leadership role in the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences, and Exhibitions (MICE) industry...; ...where he directed six editions of the Tianguis Turístico trade show and established the Mexico Convention Bureau...), in addition it contained what I consider undue fawning over his family (ex: During his time at ITAM, he met his future wife Fabiola Lizárraga Ruz. The couple married in 1992 and have three daughters: Faby, Dany, and Regina). The "Awards" and "Industry involvement" sections both look quite out of place on English Wikipedia, as other examples. This writing might as well be published on LinkedIn. Not the content business Wikipedia is in.

The primary difference between a Wikipedia article and any other social media is that on Wikipedia the subject doesn't really get to speak about what they know about themselves. Completely irrelevant. Even interviews published in reliable sources don't normally count towards notability. Instead, we require direct detailing cited from multiple reliable, diverse and independent sources. Wikipedians want to cite detail from what others have published about the subject. IMHO, of the forty-three already applied citations, not one of them meets Wikipedia's standard for independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. Not a single one.

Here's what I am willing to do. If you can find three sources about the subject which meet Wikipedia's standard for direct detailing from multiple independent and reliable sources, present them here and I'll consider whether they suffice to source a userspace draft. BusterD (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I was the one that tagged Edonga for CSD two days ago. Thanks for deleting it- that's another AI-generated article off the platform. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello BusterD,

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) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Finishing adding semi protected status

Hello, I saw that you were adding a protection status to D. Todd Christofferson due to consistent vandalism (where you were adding protection status in this edit), but it looks like it wasn't able to be completed, as a bot removed the protection template, as it says it was an "unprotected page." The page also does not have the 'semi-protected' icon on it. Would you please finish adding the protection status to the page? Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The same thing happened at David A Bednar, if you could finish protecting that page as well. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked on this. Protection was accurately applied to both pages on May 2. Protection periods for both pages expired on May 9, and neither has seen any vandalism since that time. That's why the bot removed the icons. FYI, Wikipedia doesn't protect pages unless they are currently under attack, or if they've suffered long term abuse. Nothing like that here. BusterD (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Mistaken Deletion of the film page for Ghostbox Cowboy

Saw your name attached to a deletion for this movie title. I'm not an AI bot I wrote the artcle. This is a highly regarded NY Times Critic pick that premiered in Tribeca in 2018 and the sources are all published reviews — Variety, IONCINEMA, NY Times, Guardian. If the references are too loose please consider restoring and I'll tighten. Thanks a bunch. Janet Harahan Janet (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 241, May 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2026

• News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison
  He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.

• In the media: Indonesian editors, you shall return!
  And lawspam, may you be away.

• Disinformation report: Who is a typical paid editor? Who are their typical clients?
  Remember the golden rule!

• Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate
  Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?

• Traffic report: This is where I'll be, so heavenly, so come and dance with me Michael!
  A real off the wall thriller, invincible, can't beat it, or is it dangerous and just bad?

• Forum: WikiAnnotate: help us build a dataset of article quality evaluations
  A research project to build better automated article assessment tools.

• In focus: Demystifying the 2026-27 Annual Plan
  A guide to WMF's Tech Annual Plan for the next year.

• Opinion: Wikipedia isn't a battleground. So why does it feel like one?
  Do we really have to fight?

• Serendipity: Wikinews: Into the Wikiverse
  The early suggestions for what the wiki could have been.

• Special report: Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years
  Displaces 700 active editors among 31 language editions.

• Community view: Wikipedia's traffic drop: more on languages and freshness
  Which topics are dropping, and is the pattern the same everywhere?

• Gallery: Earth Day and Mother's Day
  Earth Day was on 22 April, and Mother's Day was on 10 May (in the US and many other countries).

• Comix: Brother, can you spare a page?
  What would you say?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Montgolfier Balloon

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Montgolfier Balloon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LizeLive (talk) LizeLive (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Laykecole/sandbox

Hi Buster. Bit surprised here, I was just about to decline this CSD and leave a reminder to the nominator to be more careful, since the page doesn't appear to have any promotional content. Am I missing something? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been moving pretty quickly through a huge list of (mostly G5) tags, so it's possible I misread, but on re-look, we're talking about the high school student, right? BusterD (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. If he were younger ofc it'd be an OS issue, but he's 17 going on 18. All I see is dryly-written autobiographical content, pretty similar to what you'd see on lots of people's userpages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a minor child writing an autobiography. How is this NOT promotional material? Another admin just deleted the same content at Draft:Layke Cole. I'm not seeing the distinction. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Why would either of those things make something promotional? Age is only relevant to the OS self-disclosure cutoff, which the user is above. And WP:G11 is quite clear: "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements". There is not a single word in the page that reads like an advertisement. Being autobiographical is not grounds for speedy deletion in any namespace, and especially not in userspace (where we explicitly allow "limited autobiographical content") or draftspace (where we tell people to go to submit COI articles). I'm happy to ping Jimfbleak as well, if he would like to explain which language in the draft he found promotional. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Tamzin, late here now, so I'll look tomorrow, but if you think I've got it wrong, I'm happy for you to restore anyway

@Tamzin and BusterD:, looks like self-promotion to me, but as I've already said, I'm not bothered if Tamzin wants to restore this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (24 May 2026)

Hello BusterD,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 15:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC) (Starobilsk)
• 15:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC) (2026 Ukrainian drone incursions into the Baltic states)
• 15:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC) (Starobilsk)
• 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC) (2026 Starobilsk strike)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting Dead Internet theory, I appreciate the help. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (31 May 2026)

Hello BusterD,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 12:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC) (Lebanese people in Israel)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to retrieve deleted content: Draft:Presolv360

Hi BusterD, you deleted Draft:Presolv360 on 27 May 2026 under G11. I am a disclosed paid editor per WP:PAID on User:Legalwiki123. I would like to request the deleted content be restored or userfied to my userspace at User:Legalwiki123/Presolv360 where I can continue improving it per AfC guidelines. The draft was substantially rewritten multiple times following AfC reviewer feedback and contained no promotional language in its final version. It cited independent reliable sources including The Hindu, Artificial Lawyer, and a DAKSH/IIT Delhi academic publication. Legalwiki123 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if I stipulate to everything you've written above, I'd argue the draft subject still doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:NCORP. It's a run of the mill corporation, like thousands around the world. You have an enormous bar to clear. You apparently exhausted the patience of previous reviewers. I'll make you an offer: I'll restore all the versions of the draft and draft talk pages. If you get somebody to promote your draft to pagespace, I'm going to assess it myself. If I'm not satisfied, I'm going to put the page up for deletion at WP:AFD. And we can let the community weigh in. And then the question will be answered. I will certainly not protect it from the assessments of other wikipedians. But I will not allow the draft to sit idle for months for it to time out WP:G13. That's not any sort of threat. It's the deal to which you must agree if you want me to restore it. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to retrieve deleted content: Draft:AntoinePierini

Hu Buster, I see that you have deleted Draft:AntoinePierini on June 3rd under G15. I am the editor and not an AI monitor. I would love to request the deleted content to be restored to my userspace User:AntoinePierini so I can continue to edit and make the necessary changed for the trust to be that I created this cite. I would like to add better references and I had not finished the historical connection to the Pierini family and Glass History. I cited a few independent sources to my text. I only published the cite to not be deleted for the 3rd time. Thank you so much. , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinepierini (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Request answered on the user's talk. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am back online! With a more appropriate username now. Cheers! AirOn1980 (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry on Deletion of Draft:Park Place Technologies

Hi BusterD, I saw that my draft for Park Place Technologies was deleted due to a variety of reasons pertaining to my resources, LLM-generated content, and promotional writing. To be honest, this has been my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia page as a paid writer with a company, and there has been a lot of learning as I go with this page. I was hoping to continue with edits to align with Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. I do not plan to resubmit the draft for review any time soon, but would you be able to restore the draft so that I may see the structure, sources that I used, etc.? I received feedback on why a lot of my sources cannot be used through the Help Desk, and I'd like to fix the draft based on their advice.

Also, will I run the risk of getting my company blacklisted from ever posting a page if I do submit the draft for review again later down the road after fixing the initial issues?

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaileyN (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

KreekCraft

Hello, BusterD,

I see you deleted KreekCraft (YouTuber). However, you left a comment, not a CSD criteria so when you get a minute, can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft (YouTuber) and provide a deletion rationale? Thanks so much for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I undeleted and then G4'd. I didn't mean to cut corners, but in the moment "SIX TIMES" seemed pretty compelling all by itself... BusterD (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)