User talk:BusterD: Difference between revisions

::::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. [[User:Glebushko0703|Gigman]] ([[User talk:Glebushko0703|talk]]) 16:39, 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. [[User:Glebushko0703|Gigman]] ([[User talk:Glebushko0703|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. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD#top|talk]]) 16:57, 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. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD#top|talk]]) 16:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::[[Special:Diff/1331824785|A new personal attack]] ([[Special:Diff/1332122139|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 harrasment, edit warring, accusations and personal attacks. – [[User talk:Sbaio|sbaio]] 18:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::[[Special:Diff/1331824785|A new personal attack]] ([[Special:Diff/1332122139|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 , edit warring, accusations and personal attacks. – [[User talk:Sbaio|sbaio]] 18:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::{{tqq|If you can convince another admin to unblock you}} – don’t give them ideas [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::{{tqq|If you can convince another admin to unblock you}} – don’t give them ideas [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

BusterD is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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