User talk:SamHiggle

SamHiggle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SamHiggle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sactions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Proud Boys. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsumikiria: Hello, thank you for reaching out. However, you are reverting my contributions, and I am simply reverting your reverts, so your advice applies more to you than to me.

While I have your attention on the subject, let me point out a few things.

First, only two of those sources mention the White genocide view of a Proud Boy, and they both refer solely to exactly what I wrote.
Second, one of those sources even calls Proud Boys a "men's club", which is even more suggestive of a fraternity than "men's group", and many of the page's sources use "men's organization", which is directly synonymous to "men's group".
Finally, if you do not want anything about what you call "lies" about the left, then you will have to remove the whole thing about the man's view that White Western men are under assault, because that it exactly what the cited source for that bit of information is about – you cannot validly support a vague (and misleading) insinuation being on the page but object to a clearer version of it because of what it means.

If you have further objections, please feel free to raise them with me. I think you will find that I am quite reasonable, and I am happy to change my mind when shown a good argument.

SamHiggle (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about edit-warring, and since you are the initiator of the edit,it is incumbent on you to gain consensus after your edits have been rejected, not to keep on reverting to your preferred version immediately after being warned. Use the talkpage to present your case and to gain consensus. If this continues you may be subject to discretionary sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SamHiggle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Acroterion: I was only warned about my reverts, which were in direct response to other reverts, whose reasons I've debunked. How is that edit warring when the initial reverts were not? I was being bold, but only as bold in my reverts as the reverters of my contributions, so how was I to know it was too much? The three-revert rule was unbroken.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SamHiggle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In addition to the above reasons why the block was unreasonable, I am blocked anyway from editing the page in question, because it now required 500 prior edits, and I have only just over 100. Either way, I intend to gain consensus on the Talk page before making changes, and I am encouraged to do so, but I can only do that while unblocked.

Accept reason:

Given that you have agreed to discuss and seek consensus, I think it is fair to unblock you - and I have done so. The extended protection 500-edit thing obviously makes a technical difference, but your willingness to discuss is the key. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems heavy handed. SamHiggle, are you aware of WP:3RR? You made a 4th revert within 24 hours which is almost never allowed. If you had been asked to undo your revert would you have, and will you pledge not to violate 3RR when your block expires? D.Creish (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Creish: I am aware of 3RR, and I did not make a fourth revert within 24 hours. SamHiggle (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]