User talk:BOLO 97

Paul Manafort

Hello, BOLO! Thanks for your recent edits at Paul Manafort. I actually agree with you that we should mention, in the lede, the fact that the charges against him do not involve the Russia interference. However, several people have objected to the information by removing it, so it is important that you not add it again. That would be edit warring. Instead, I have started a discussion at Talk:Paul Manafort, to see if we can reach consensus about what to do. The material must not be added to the article again unless and until there is consensus to include it. That's how Wikipedia works. You can make your arguments there at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied on the talk page. Please be fair when considering what is happening in this situation because it does seem like you are holding me to a different standard than other users who are making things up in order to remove RS information they disagree with. I don't see you posting on their talk pages and criticizing their bad actions. I see you are an admin so just though it was important to say this. BOLO 97 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Manafort Primay picture

Hi BOLO 97, I'm concerned about your recent edit removing Paul Manafort's picture on his Wiki page. You say there is no concensus, but there are twice the keep votes for leaving the current photo as is, his recent mugshot. I encourage you to read these two Wikipedia pages to help clarify the rules of this site: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. AlexOvShaolin 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice

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.

3RR

Your recent editing history at Paul Manafort 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.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only reverted twice today, please don't lie. A series of edits back to back counts as one. BOLO 97 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User_talk:Volunteer_Marek. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. False accusations of socking are personal attacks. Don't do it. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused, so it's OK for VolunteerMarek to falsely accuse me of being a sock but if I respond to them I get told "False accusations of socking are personal attacks. Don't do it." BOLO 97 (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's over an hour later and I still don't see a warning on Marek's talk page telling them not to falsely accuse other users of being a sock. I wonder why that is?? BOLO 97 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Volunteer Marek. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. [1] bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are not quite clear on what Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy means. Do not say that other editors are "evil" or "gaslighting". Do not claim that other editors are sockpuppets unless you have clear evidence to back that up. Do not imply that other editors are ganging up with their "buddies". Do not call other editors' edits vandalism when they do not violate WP:VAND. Whether those things are strictly personal attacks or merely very uncivil can be a matter for discussion, and all of us might commit those things in the heat of the moment, but consistently uncivil behaviour and persistent claims that other people are evil after you have been warned about attacking others is a very different thing. A couple of sections above, you were specifically requested by an admin not to make unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusations, and yet you have done that again, several times including just now [2]. I'm not an admin, but I am fairly certain you are headed for a block unless you choose to change your communicative patterns rather radically, and start acknowledging that your own behaviour has been problematic. --bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:AN3 to get a better idea of what's going on here. There is a sophisticated SOCK/WIKILAWYERING/GASLIGHTING campaign going on by VolunteerMarek/AlexOvShaolin. I realize this may sound paranoid but if read through everything and check the recent edit histories of those two users you will have a much better idea of what is happening. BOLO 97 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

—SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:AN3 to get a better idea of what's going on here. There is a sophisticated SOCK/WIKILAWYERING/GASLIGHTING campaign going on by VolunteerMarek/AlexOvShaolin. I realize this may sound paranoid but if read through everything and check the recent edit histories of those two users you will have a much better idea of what is happening. BOLO 97 (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, Drmies asks you to stop making unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry, and your response is to double down on your accusations...twice? This is actually worse than your edit-warring (which, at—what, nine reverts now?—is bad enough). —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another admin telling you the same thing? You really ought to start taking a little advice. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this situation may look bad but please read through WP:AN3 to understand what is actually happening before you accuse me of "unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry". Thanks. BOLO 97 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthened to three days because of the edit warring. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bolo 97, sorry to see that you've been blocked. I know it can be frustrating, but when several editors are trying to give you advice, please try to comply. Your enthusiasm is much needed, but accusing editors of gaslighting and socking is normally never helpful, even if you know you are 100% correct on the content argument. Drmies is a good admin - if you have concerns in the future I'm sure he or others would help. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so, Mr Ernie--and thank you for your opinion in the mug shot conversation: I couldn't agree more. BOLO, it sucks to be blocked, but one of the things you have to learn in collaborative editing (I learned this the hard way also, and maybe Mr Ernie did too) is to sometimes let go. On the talk page you said, somewhere, "for the tenth time..."--well, if you say something for the tenth time, and nobody listened, maybe they did hear you but didn't agree, and that's just something you have to live with. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, I suppose it was worth a try. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]