User talk:SamHiggle

Discretionary sactions alert
Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

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