User talk:Nicoljaus

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continuous work against POV-pushing and blatant vandalism, congratulations! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Mikola22 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Anna

Hi, unless you are just about to write an article for Bolshoy Fontan, I'd rather not have a red link sitting around for years. WP:red link. Thanks Anna (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, Anna. WP:red link says to as: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic". As I see, both Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia have articles about this area of Odessa, and it has an interesting history. I will try to create this article using translation in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Croatia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It's strange decision. There was edit warring in the article starting from 8 February, Mikola22 against three users. Only on 12 February he made three reverts in less than 12 hours. Maybe you at least write him a comment? He is sure that he is doing everything right.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A country article is too high-profile of an article to undergo a spillover of the chronic disputes between you two. If I wouldn't block both of you from the article, you are likely to be edit warring over it, indefinitely. No, when it comes to Mikola22 or vice versa, you ought to use dispute resolution requests and use them often, so that other editors can help break down the given dispute, and hopefully, figure out what's what. So, I'm going to let other editors decide what is to be done about the Croatia dispute, mainspace-wise. You two are welcome to use the article talk page to advance your respective positions. El_C 00:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

between you two Clear misconception. Start of the edit warring, revert of the revert: [1]. Does anyone see my actions here? --Nicoljaus (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is the above even addressed to me? El_C 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that you are trying to show the situation as if it was the two of us with Mikola22 who had a conflict in this article. This is obviously a misconception.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sitewide block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring against Mikola22 while partially blocked (!). 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, El_C, I wrote on the talk page: [2], I opened a RSN discussion: [3] and got a third-party opinion that "So, better source needed for such a contentious claim". What else could I do? wp:BRD canceled or what's the matter? --Nicoljaus (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The matter is that you seem to have violated 3RR today by reverting the very user your were partially blocked for having edit warred against, again. El_C 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, El_C, but I thought this sentence from WP:3RR excuse me: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." I partially deleted material added ([4]) contrary to the open discussion on the talk page, with two consecutive edits: [5], [6]. Then I made a second revert (also two edits: [7], [8]). Then I made the last (third) revert with one edit: [9] and wrote on the discussion page contacting you: [10] and began to wait for the reaction, instead of continuing the edit war. That's all. That is, three reverts, with open discussion on the TP and the third-party opinion on the RSN. If I misunderstood the rule, please explain where I made a mistake.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you violated 3RR or not, you were edit warring while recently partially blocked for edit warring (!). Again, the partial block was a boon, which I'm afraid you (both) squandered. El_C 21:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop, El_C, but there was very strange situation with this partial block! As I wrote to you in the topic above, there was a long-term war of revisions, in which Mikola22, contrary to the opinion of three (!) other editors, pushed his edits:

1. [11],
2. [12],
3. [13],
4. [14],
5. [15],
6. [16],
7. [17].

My participation in this conflict was rather small (two edits at all). In this situation, for some reason you suddenly blocked me, instead of explaining to Mikola22 that he was behaving incorrectly. He is still sure (or pretends to be sure) that "I have the right to edit warring, because I am right": [18] And then he continued to do the same thing - pushing his edits, ignoring the TP, the RSN and wp:DRR. We discussed this situation in the topic above, but you just broke off the conversation without saying a word that this is a “boon” and that now I have no right to reverting his edits. If this was a hint, then, unfortunately, I did not understand it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC) upd22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)~

Did you really just tell me to stop? If you did not figure out that you and Mikola22 should not have been reverting one another anymore after the partial block, then I really don't know what to say. Please stop pinging me. You have the right of appeal, make use of it, if you must. El_C 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the problem with the word "stop"? I meant "stop, attention" - in this sense. You really need some AGF. As you can see, this was not obvious. Few direct words would have been more useful.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration sanction

Upon your return to editing, you will be subject to a 1RR restriction on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. The duration I fixed to this restriction is indefinite, however, you may appeal it no less than six months after it takes effect (2 months from now). El_C 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

A two-month block was imposed by the administrator El_C after he imposed a partial month-long block for my actions in the article Croatia. In this article, I made two reverts, and the opponent (who was blocked too) made seven reverts, and also he waged an edit war with two more users ([19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25]). The administrator later stated that partial block was a “boon” and I should have realized that I could no longer reverting edits of Mikola22. Unfortunately, I did not understand this. Then, I made reverts in the article Slavonia. The administrator considered that I violated the 3RR rule. It seemed to me that I did not (and I still do not understand if I correctly interpreted the rule clause, see the discussion above). After that, the administrator made a symmetrical block on me and Mikola22, although I followed WP:BRD (information I deleted has just been added.), I wrote on the talk page: [26], and opened a RSN discussion: [27], and got a third-party opinion that "So, better source needed for such a contentious claim". So, I did my reverts to consensus version only after extensive discussion. In addition, that was I who pinged El_C:[28] and began to wait for his reaction, instead of continuing the edit war. In view of the above, I find the blocking insufficiently substantiated: 1. An ambiguous decision for partial blocking; 2. Unspoken warning; 3. Unclear situation with the 3RR.
Further. Sanctions are imposed on me - the 1RR restriction "on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed." ([29]. I believe that this sanction effectively prevents possible edit wars on my part. In this regard ("blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"), I believe that my block can be lifted, leaving a restriction on 1RR. In addition, I will refrain from any intersections with the user Mikola22, in order to avoid possible conflicts in a different form.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for your edits, so your complaints about the other editor are not relevant here. Given your focus on that editor in your unblock request, I'm not confident regarding the commitments you have offered. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Unblock request 2

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Nick-D said my previous unblock request was focused on "that editor". Therefore, I completely rewrote the request, removing all rmentions to "that editor"!

A two-month block was imposed by the administrator El_C after he imposed a partial month-long block for my actions in the article Croatia. In this article, I made two reverts at all. The administrator later stated that partial block was a “boon”. Unfortunately, I did not understand this. Then, I made reverts in the article Slavonia. The administrator considered that I violated the 3RR rule. It seemed to me that I did not (and I still do not understand if I correctly interpreted the rule clause, see the discussion above). After that, the administrator made a block on me although I followed WP:BRD (information I deleted has just been added.), I wrote on the talk page: [30], and opened a RSN discussion: [31], and got a third-party opinion that "So, better source needed for such a contentious claim". So, I did my reverts to consensus version only after extensive discussion. In addition, that was I who pinged El_C:[32] and began to wait for his reaction, instead of continuing the edit war. In view of the above, I find the blocking insufficiently substantiated: 1. An ambiguous decision for partial blocking; 2. Unspoken warning; 3. Unclear situation with the 3RR.
Further. Sanctions are imposed on me - the 1RR restriction "on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed." ([33]. I believe that this sanction effectively prevents possible edit wars on my part. In this regard ("blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"), I believe that my block can be lifted, leaving a restriction on 1RR.

Decline reason:

You claim that you have "followed WP:BRD", but you have not. WP:BRD-NOT says: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." You've done exactly that. Therefore, I'm declining your request for a site-wide unblock. Instead, I am partially unblocking you so that you can edit all namespaces except articles. That way, you can make useful talk page discussions and show us your constructive intent. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

I'm... impressed. Have you already banned anyone who had reverted new edits twice? Okay, this is a good moment to say "goodbye".--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for editing logged out in violation of the sock puppetry policy. 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 ~~~~}}.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Callanecc. When I was young and naive, I asked for SPI on the same guy: [34]. But I get reply that CheckUser evidence cannot be used connect registered accounts to IP addresses. Please explain why in these two cases there was such a different approach.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at the comments written in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section on the page you linked. The admin who closed the case stated, "I'm not going to block someone over creating an account after an IP block expired and they claim that they're someone different. I doubt an actual sock would admit that they had a range blocked." The evidence you presented was reviewed and the patrolling admin determined that there had not been a breach of the sockpuppetry policy. In your instance, I reviewed the behavioural evidence which was presented and decided that you did breach the sockpuppetry policy by editing logged out in the way you did. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I’ll say one last thing, I don’t understand why all chekusers so protect this guy from checks, although his various accounts have already been blocked many times: I think this is an IP-sock of Themanhascome, who is the sock of UkrainianSavior who is the sock of Umertan

and I don’t understand why the request from his next sock (just registered) was executed at such a speed. I made edits without logging in because I do not want to log in (I really want to left all this wiki-shit behind). I had to log in later just to offer another user to drop charges that he is my sockpuppet [35]--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I can assure the Wiki community that I am not the sock puppet of any user. Personal attacks such as this are characteristic of Nicoljaus. It should be noted that the attempt Nicoljaus made to drag another user into this and get them to lie for him was deleted by that user. Ctvaughn555 (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kamala Harris on a "History and geography" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Katrina Karkazis on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials as well as revert high-quality maps on Wikipedia without adequate explanation and participation in talk page discussion you may be blocked from editing or give restriction to edit a certain topic. You were already blocked and reported in the past for edit warring on the similar or same topic. Thank you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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. Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violation of a personal WP:1RR restriction related to WP:ARBEE on the page White Croats, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• Yes, my memory let me down, I forgot about this limitation (I haven't been here for a long time). All I wanted from Miki was to get a source for the map with which he replaced the one that was there before: [36]. Here is a page from the article that the old map was based on: [37]. It can be seen that the new map seriously contradicts the source referred to. This is at least an original synthesis.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slakr: instead of rethinking their behavior, the editor is still trying to influence the editing of English Wikipedia by making a deletion request of a map I uploaded at Wikimedia Commons which is included in English Wikipedia articles. The editor is without hope because is making false accusations and claims although the map is reliably sourced and I could cite even more reliable sources. It is another example of their pushing of extremely biased POV and refusal to get the point about the topic and accept the editor's consensus. After almost a year of tiresome discussions and edit warring, it came to the point their behavior became highly disrespectful toward other editors.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well, what about link to the prototype of your map?--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You understand that you don't need the exact prototype of a map to create a new map using reliably cited information and borders? That many if not the majority of historical maps used on Wikipedia are not copies of copyrighted maps i.e. they don't have exact prototypes and are based on multiple reliable sources and maps to get the most neutral and reliable map? You understand that you're using your talk page for content discussion and WP:NOTTHEM?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• I wrote on the map removal page. There are no reliable sources that confirm it. On the contrary, cited source contradicts it. If your interpretation is so undeniable, surely someone has already drawn a map to which it corresponds.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Stated another way, your edit break the wp:Verifiability policy. Are you pretending to be an expert who can create new information (map) yourself? then it breaks the WP:SYNTH rule.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am not wasting any more time with someone who has personal agenda stalking editors, blatantly lying there are no reliable sources and interpretation of the policy. Enjoy your block.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "blatantly lying", etc., as usual.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have also to point out that my opponent violated the WP:3RR:

1. 16:52, 13 October 2020
2. 17:10, 13 October 2020
3. 17:20, 13 October 2020
4. 16:42, 14 October 2020--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You have decency to bring that up after violating 1RR? You think that your disruptive edit should have been kept at the article for hours and days?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh, technically, you violated 1RR too? This is my userpage^{and this is my talk page} 15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbia

I start discussion at WP:DRN so it would be nice for you to join us to resolve this in good faith, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22: with all due respect, I see no point in participating in this discussion alone. You can see a clear consensus against further expanding this issue in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand, cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user on Alexei Navalny

Hey,

Would it be worth trying to get administrator intervention to stop the user on the Alexei Navalny page who keeps edit warring, amongst other things? LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to show AGF (although I have few of it in this case). Such a statement really was and it is only necessary to bring it in the correct form.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A few of the sources they are using appear to be non-reliable, especially the blogs. LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The blog is just the primary source, but written by Navalny himself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny - users keep reinstating content that is being discussed on talk

Hi, the content about Navalny's views on the war against Georgia that is currently being discussed on talk at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Did he support the war against Georgia or not? keeps being reinstated, which is obviously vandalism/edit warring. I've reverted these suspicious new IP's 3 times now, but don't want to edit-war. Could you possibly revert back to the status quo again while it's still being discussed on talk? LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I have the right to do so, I an under restrictions - User_talk:Nicoljaus#Arbitration_sanction. And I advise you not to continue making reverts. Although the 3RR is a bright red line, you can be punished for less if some admin comes up with such an idea.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see yes fair enough. Yes I've stopped reverting at 3 now but probably should have just left it after the first couple. LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Georgian Sentiment

 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PailSimon (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sawing" issue

My Russian language translation change was correct. In order for the Russian to mean "sawing" it would have to be "распилил" from "распилить" (which is "to saw" as in to saw in half), not "распил" - which, I repeat, means "drank away" (correctly in the past tense).Moryak (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your Russian is probably not as good as you think. You can search for "распил бабла" or "распил бюджета" in Google. If you have a reasonable explanation for why "drank away" is here, please give it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a verb, this is a slang-ish noun from "распилить", which indeed means "sawing off", though translating idiomatic expressions is never an easy task.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Ymblanter. Could you please stop this sluggish war? May be just revert to status quo ante?

• Controversial edit: 22:45, 7 February 2021
• Re-insertion 1: 22:27, 11 February 2021
• Re-insertion 2: 05:21, 12 February 2021
• The discussion was initiated on the user's talk page: 8 February 2021, no reply.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, it would be more beneficial for everybody if I remain uninvolved here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681)

After reading more information concerning the result/outcome of this war, I feel we need to re-assess the result. I think a resolution like the Battle of Jamrud which indicates a result of disputed with a link to a paragraph in the article which discusses the different results.

I will start a discussion on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Warning

Nicoljaus, as someone whom I have already placed Arbitration enforcement remedies against in the past, I'm letting you know that are coming awfully close to facing further sanctions, ones which are likely to be of greater severity. The WP:ASPERSIONS that you continue to direct toward Mhorg at Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement cross a line. If you contend that there are violations, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances. El_C 12:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)