User talk:BusterD

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: SophiaJustice59 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

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)

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)

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)