Jump to content

User talk:BusterD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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 07:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


AfC submissions
Random submission
~5 weeks
2,073 pending submissions
(refresh)
Archive 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

[edit]

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]

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

[edit]

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]

Can you please restore Draft:Radford Sechrist?

[edit]

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 situation

[edit]

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]

Revdel

[edit]

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]

G11 Deletion Livingseeds Heirloom Seeds

[edit]

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]

Groza

[edit]

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]

Federation of Medical Women of Canada

[edit]

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]

Speedy deletion of the Gravitee page

[edit]

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]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

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

Question about غوّاص العلم

[edit]

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]

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

[edit]

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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Accusations of political bias by Gigman ("you people") [1] and suggestion that I am WP:NOTHERE [2]. 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)[reply]
Ok this is too much. I'm puting this issue on the Notice Board. Gigman (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And I was on neither, despite being aware of the discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Deletion of Sanctuvium Draft:Darrell R. Fisher

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletion of: Guillermo Rodríguez Navarrete

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

South Asian controversal articles?

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

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

Recent protection of an Afd

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Request for comment

[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 237, January 2026

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

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

Glebushko0703

[edit]

Hello, you sanctioned[3] 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[4], which means your block was unjustified. Can you provide diffs? Kelob2678 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tora-Con

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2026

[edit]

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

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BusterD&oldid=1337630681"