User talk:Peacebroker

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Me Too (hashtag) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please also familiarize yourself with our civility policy. You are conducting yourself in an overly combative and insulting fashion. This is a collaborative project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is locked. What is the point of this message supposed to be?Peacebroker (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this message is to explain the policy on edit warring so that you will stop this type of behavior. Any future edit warring will result in a block. I hope that you understand now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

** Great! Thanks for the lesson! I trust you must have left a similar message at the other editor's talk page, then, too, to teach him the same lesson, right? What's that? You didn't? Thanks!Peacebroker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you get paid by Trump directly, or do the checks come through Putin?" Accusing another editor of undisclosed paid editing without rock solid evidence is a completely unacceptable personal attack. Stop this behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the mirror. You claim to be here to "stop an edit war." The page is already locked. You only left a message on my page, instead of both editors. Thus, your own comments are themselves quite rude. Peacebroker (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, why not add abuse of your tools to your resume while you're busy being an asshole? You should be embarrassed of what you just did. Peacebroker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Peacebroker with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake, Jim. Peacebroker (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for continuing your personal attacks after being warned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are one sad, sad individual Cullen. It really doesn't get much lower than abusing your administrative tools on Wikipedia because someone calls you out on being rude. You are drunk on the lowest form of power known to man. Peacebroker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your insults mean nothing to me, as I have broad support of the community, and your misbehavior is obvious for all to see. By the way, I have also warned the edit warring IP user. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Your insults mean nothing to me, as I have broad support of the community." I'm very happy for you. Look, the relevant facts are these. I was correct, and had other editors who supported my version, as well as sources. The other editor had neither sources or anyone else who supported his mere opinion that Trump didn't belong, despite the 6 sources to add Trump to that article, all from after October 2017, all of which even showed he was subpoenaed on October 15, 2017 and asked about this at the WH on October 16, 2017, and all 6 of which sources related it to the Weinstein allegations. The other editor merely had his own irrelevant personal views. Since you apparently agree with those irrelevant personal views, and have "tools" and the "support of the community", you have the mistaken impression that your views should take precedence over what actual sources from the real world say. In these opinions, friend, you are wrong. Have a good one. Please enjoy continuing to abuse your power when someone calls out your shit. Peacebroker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care in the slightest about the content dispute. My actions were based entirely on your bad behavior. So, the solution is simple. Stop your bad behavior if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brought here after seeing edit on Samsara's talk page. Block is warranted. Personal attacks and incivility on user and article talk pages are clear and repeated. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that my block is in error and disagree with EvergreenFir, then follow the directions in the message above to request an unblock. We will see if any other administrator believes that I am being unfair with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Samsara didn't even read the sources and reverted to the non-stable version without Trump that the other editor was warring to have removed despite having stably been there for days. He then ignorantly opined that "allegations about Trump have been around for years" without knowing that the sources were all regarding the October 15 subpoena of Trump which he then denied as "lies" and "fake news" on October 16, 2017, and yet told me to "get the facts straight" when he obviously did not know what he was talking about and was just guessing what he thought the sources were about, without looking at them. You don't think it's problematic for an administrator to make edits without knowing what it is that they are removing or actually finding what the version was PRIOR to the edit war? You don't think anyone should point out to administrators when they make an obvious mistake? Samsara even admits in his edit summaries that he was just blindly editing the page without a clue about what was going on. See his edit summary stating "RV now I see what the dispute is about." Also, samsara was quite uncivil, claiming I had "blindly reverted" (in fact I added 6 sources and read them; Samsara didn't even read the talk page before locking the page and choosing what version to revert to) and in the rest of his rude, snarky comments to "get the facts straight" when he had literally zero clue of what was going on and merely assumed I had added old sources regarding old Trump allegations, which simply wasn't true. Administrators aren't always correct, you know, and there's nothing wrong with telling them they were wrong, especially when they obviously didn't read the material. Peacebroker (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not requesting an unblock because I QUIT on account of all this bullshit. I was right and clearly won the argument on the talk page, and yet the other version was reverted to because an administrator can't read. GOODBYE Y'ALL!Peacebroker (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you were blocked on account of personal attacks, not for your article edits... Jim1138 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you were not blocked for the content dispute or for disagreeing with Samsara. All such commentary is irrelevant. You were warned (as was the IP) for your egregious edit warring, and then blocked for hurling insults and personal attacks in all directions. You need to come to terms with your own unacceptable misbehavior and the real reasons why you were blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]