User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

When this is done can I ask how I should have handled a number of these situations?

SFR, I'm hearing the message that I handled a number of disagreements incorrectly. What I was hoping could come out of the ARBCOM case is some additional helpful tools/rules/guidelines to help editors deal with what are often conflicts based on how much weight to give information in various places. What I'm clearly hearing is I handled things incorrectly but I would like to know how you think I should have handled these situations. I would like to go through a few examples and give you what I perceive was happening (not saying I was correct, just what my perception was) and then you more or less coach what would be more effective ways to handle the same content/editor disputes. I find the conflicts frustrating so ways to be more effective are always welcome. I was pleased with the discussion with Steve Quinn. I feel we both had a better understanding of the other person's perspective and would be in a better spot to reach a mutually agreeable editing outcome in similar situation. I would be helpful and appreciated if you are up for something similar but with more focus on the editing/consensus building vs any specific content. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This would be better handled after the conclusion of the case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean would you be open to discussing this when the case is closed. I think when I first typed this out but may have been removed in the edits before posting. Springee (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Certainly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

With this closed is this a good time to give some examples and ask how you would suggest I handle them? Springee (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Just want to let you know I've seen this. I hope to have time to dedicate to it in a couple days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Springee, what were the situations you wanted to review? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I have two situations in mind, both from the case. I'll try to type up the first later today when I have time to sit down at the computer. Springee (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the Mossberg 930 article would be a good starting point. I believe the accusation is I edit warred to remove content. This wasn't an article I was generally following but I noted the edits because the same editor, who had ~100 edits at the time, had made edits I questioned at another article. The 930 article at the time was a stub with just 1 sentence. I didn't think the content was due so I reverted it with an edit note. 3 1/2 years later the same editor restores the material with no edit summary . I again revert with a summary that hits closer to my DUE concern vs what I posted the first time . So far I think this is all above board. The editor immediately reverts me with an edit summary that also speaks to weight. I revert them per BRD and said they need consensus to restore a challenged edit. I will say, at this point I could have taken it to talk first, made a case then see if they gain consensus. My read of ONUS and NOCON is that obligation is on the other editor as they are trying to make a change. However, I certainly could have chosen to be the one to take it to talk first.

Similar material was added then added by two different IP editors and reverted by two different named editors. When one of the IP editors restored the material a second time I reverted it and said, take it to talk. At this point I believe that I've followed BRD, NOCON and ONUS and at all times provided a reasonable if not long edit summary. With the ARBCOM case underway, Dlthewave restored the disputed but did not start a talk page discussion to gain consensus. Another editor started a discussion and pinged Dlthewave who didn't reply. The discussion, in my view, was productive (we understood the various views) and civil. It ultimately resulted in an AfD. This article was used as evidence against me but prior to August I'm not sure reverting a few drive by edits was that wrong. I mean, in the future I will err on the side of creating discussion just in case. In my view, the restoration in August, after presenting this as edit warring on my part seems like the biggest deviation from how BRD, ONUS and NOCON tell us to handle this situation. Especially when the discussion was started and ignored by a 3rd editor. Anyway, as I noted above, I'm presenting this not as a claim I was right, rather to offer my perception and ask where I missed the turn that would have kept me on the correct path. I would also ask, were mistakes made by others? Thanks. Springee (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The first turn would have been bringing it to the talk page on your first revert rather than waiting for four years of edits to ask someone else to bring it to the talk page. You also could have left the prose there while you opened a discussion and waited on, at minimum, some discussion before reverting. This wasn't a BLP issue that could cause harm and the information was correct, even if you disagreed on weight grounds. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I can see that as being the lowest risk method. However, was it OK for others to restore the disputed text without going to the talk page? Also, I hope the first revert, which was unchallenged for 3.5 years would be seen as fine. It filled BRD. If I should have gone to the talk page right away, was it acceptable for the last person who restored the text to do so without going to the talk page? I guess this is where I'm getting hung up, we have well accepted guidelines and policies regarding who has the responsibility to take things to the talk page (with the understanding that anyone can). I guess I was more dismissive of the original editor since they were new, the same with the IP editor who was just reverting. The final restoration which was done despite 3 editors in good standing removing the material and done without going to the talk page seems to be the one that was the least policy compliant. I guess that is the part that seems confusing. We have rules about who is responsible for these things and I feel like I was following them. Would it have been viewed as handled properly to revert the first time as I did but the second time start the talk and then revert if either they didn't reply or if no talk page consensus was reached after reasonable discussion? Springee (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, having just reread BRD, it does say that restoring after you have been reverted without going to the talk page violates BRD but it also says if you revert the same text more than once, you (or me in this case), are failing to follow BRD. So I clearly missed that part in this case. Even though the first restoration was 3.5 years later and, per BRD, the other editor should have started a talk page discussion before restoring, I also failed when reverted rather than start the talk page discussion before the reverting the text the second time. I also believe all the other editors who failed to start the talk discussion before restoring or reverting again failed BRD. This is a case where I feel it would be helpful to have some type of Wiki judge who could simply say if editors are following the process and what they should do to return to the process. Extending this into a hypothetical, if after one of the removals, I started a talk page discussion and laid out my reasons, what is the next step if the editor restores anyway? We would have a NOCON condition that was being ignored? How should that be handled? Springee (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you've been around long enough to know that policies and guidelines like BRD and EDITWAR get violated all the time. For most of those editors, though, they're not editing in highly contentious topics and being party to multiple Arbcom cases. We have rules about who is responsible for these things and I feel like I was following them, WP:EDITWAR says An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Edit warring is edit warring, even if the other party may be wronger.
NOCON should go through regular DR. It's not hurting anything to leave the fact that a weapon was used in a shooting in an article until all the boxes have been ticked, and you're on much firmer ground reverting for NOCON/ONUS if you've gone through all the steps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

How do you suggest dealing with editors who restore the material then don't engage with the talk page? It somewhat applies here but also applies to some of the GOP page issues. I think the GOP page is suffering from many of the same issues that editors argued were seen at some of the firearms pages. I would like to cover some of that next but it will take a bit to type it all out.

That said, this has been productive. I thought I was following BRD and was frustrated that others were not. I now see that both sides were failing in that regard. I'm going to make sure going forward that I strictly follow BRD including, the part about don't revert a second time absent consensus on the talk page. Springee (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Leave a message on the talk page, wait a bit and invite them to the discussion on their talk page, then request a WP:THIRDOPINION. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I also want to apologize if I'm coming across as terse. I'm busy, but I want to make sure I'm responding to you in a timely manner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. Terse may not be preferred but I'm better off understanding vs making mistakes in the future. If nothing else, with all this I did discovered that I was violating BRD. I know my views are often that of the minority. For that reason I've always tried to stick with the straight and narrow. Things like never personalize debates, focus on content, do not speculate on the motives of others etc. I thought I was clear of the edit warring... thought I did catch myself failing to maintain 1RR over the last year... very much in frustration at the GOP page. However, if I had followed the same BRD I expect others to follow I don't think I would be writing this now. As I said, I will try to write up something about the GOP page but I think it will take a while. Springee (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I know my views are often that of the minority. This is often the case for me as well. What I've learned is the most important thing is to say my piece and be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:De Beers on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 07:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Should be all set, good looks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I sent another email. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. McPhail (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you both kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Request to edit the "Acquisitions" of a Kellton Page

I need information about editing the “Acquisitions” section of Kellton’s Wikipedia page. Under the “Acquisitions” tab, the following sentence appears:

“2023: Acquired Hooper Labs, a US-based firm in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and hyper-automation.”

This sentence needs to be removed because its source has been deleted.

Could you please confirm whether this edit can be made by you? Please also let me know if any additional information is required to remove it. Aniket1508 (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You can follow the directions at WP:EDITREQUEST to request a COI edit to the article. I'd also like to note that when you requested an unblock you said Yes, I do plan to make edits unrelated to Kellton. For example, I can contribute to technology-related articles by updating outdated information or adding properly sourced content on topics like AI frameworks or AI-related technologies or Agentic AI. The only two edits you've made since your unblock are a post to the Kellton talk page and this message here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Could you let me know whether Wikipedia has a list of pages where we can identify content that requires changes and suggest edits?

I am a new editor, and your help would help me understand Wikipedia’s policies clearly. Aniket1508 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see Help:Getting started. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 06:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page

Thanks for taking care of that. Been offline so didn't even see what it was but appreciate you fixing it quickly. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, I have prepared an SPI report; although full technical evidence could not be obtained due to the use of a proxy, it is definitely them. Could you please review the SPI report? Best regards. Kajmer05 (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)