User:Jargo Nautilus/sandbox3

Replying to JN & Summary of her harmful behaviours

Firstly, some words to Jargo Nautilus

Firstly, some words to @Jargo Nautilus: Referring to you as "he" doesn't mean I'm assuming your gender (thanks to Drmies for pointing it out), it just means I'm using old-fashioned English, where "he" can represent one whose gender is not clear (example). And what do you mean by "bopomofo"? I'm not even sure whether you were trying to insult me, since I don't have a rich vocabulary of swear words. Most of your replies above are nonsense. I did not reply you because I was terrified by your rudeness (making walls of text).

• The term "bopomofo" refers to a system of transliteration for Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan/ROC. I am not familiar with its workings, though I've heard the term thrown around a lot. It sounds quite... interesting. It sounds offensive even though it's not offensive in meaning. JN

Deleting comments

Jargo Nautilus has been modifying and deleting my comments (1, 2, 3), which is the reason I came to the AN/I. It seems she's been ignoring the guideline (Talk page guidelines # Editing others' comments).

• Regarding the first one, I removed it because you were singling me out for no good reason. Regarding the second one, I found it quite rude how someone who literally just rocked up to Wikipedia one week ago was telling me to "behave [my]self". Regarding the third one, I actually migrated the comments over to my talk page, and I did leave a brief message in a comment immediately afterwards explaining this, though I failed to leave a comment in the edit summary. JN

But since Jargo Nautilus has been repeatedly (here and here) mentioning one of my comments (... "unfree world" ...) in this thread, and started to accuse me of conducting ad hominem attacks against her, I will give a reply to this issue.

• True, I did single out this phrase. However, I will say, I was actually annoyed by your behaviour for a number of reasons, not just this. This was just an example, not my entire argument. JN

For anyone who is interested, read inside the Collapse Template. In short, she might have mistaken my words.

More Details

My comment was literally responding to a third user Irtapil, under the section he had made asking why do people want to present a one sided story?. I don't know why she couldn't see the hyperlink and was quoting slightly out of context. My comment consisted of 2 paragraphs. The first paragraph which was deleted by her can be broken down into 3 parts. Part 1: A Joke @Irtapil: Their motivation? Well, this is a website everyone can edit. I don't know their motivation, and I don't think I need to know. Why do you need to know their motivation? Assume good faith (WP:GF). They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. I said I just told a joke. No idea why you would think I was saying "they" are a joke, thus defaming. The tone of the words is joking, if not taken out of context. The following part starting with "Frankly speaking", also suggests the preceding speech is not serious. If I were to defame anyone, why wouldn't I omit the last sentence (Well, that was kind of a joke.) and the preceding words (@Irtapil: Their motivation? ... Assume good faith (WP:GF).), and just make it look like a serious reply? If you did really have mistaken it. Your action is still questionable. Why didn't you leave Part 2 and Part 3 undeleted? It's very obvious that you just wanted to alter my comment because you didn't like it. Part 2: Frankly speaking... Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. I think nothing is wrong about this part. Part 3: Mentioning Jargo Nautilus and other users There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion. Nothing wrong again. And you're right Jargo Nautilus, I did mention other users. But I didn't say they're "freedom fighter" But most of their unpleasant replies can be ignored.

• Your idea of a joke is my idea of rudeness. My idea of a joke is your idea of rudeness. I mean, come on dude. You can't have double standards like that. JN
• I'm a native English speaker. I obviously know that you weren't saying that I am a joke. However, I was rather annoyed at your comment in general. The part about "that was kind of a joke" wasn't really that annoying specifically. JN
• The term "frankly (speaking)" is synonymous with "honestly (speaking)" or "seriously (speaking)". The term "frankly (speaking)" does not at all indicate that you are joking around. In fact, it quite literally indicates the opposite. JN
• Appending the footnote "it's just a joke" at the end of an otherwise fairly serious reply... doesn't inspire confidence that it's actually a joke. More so, it looks like you wrote a serious reply and then taped on "it's just a joke" at the very end. JN
• It's quite (Nathan) rich of you to throw around phrases like "assume good faith" when you yourself literally just showed up to Wikipedia only just one week ago in order to push a singular POV on a singular Wikipedia article. In fact, another user, Slatersteven, has called you out on your own talk page (User talk:In wkpd#SPA) accusing you of being a "single-purpose account (user)". JN
• In terms of why I deleted the entire comment, I guess I was just lazy? I mean, all of your "points" were grouped up together in one paragraph. In any case, I deleted the entire comment because I found your singling out of me to be uncalled for. You could have singled out literally anyone else. In any case, the way that you addressed me wasn't in order to engage in discussion with me, but rather to make an example out of me. You had no intention of engaging in civil discussion when you wrote that comment. If, as you say, it was a joke... Don't you think you would have been better off not joking around, and instead actually engaging in serious discussion? JN
• The part I found offensive was "they might be thinking... mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count". The way you and multiple other editors have addressed me in recent days has been quite... antagonistic? What makes you think I'm not mainland Chinese myself? My father is from mainland China. I have many family members in mainland China. The last time I visited mainland China was in December 2018. From your comment, it sounded like you were accusing me of being some kind of white knight. JN
• Again, it's quite hypocritical of you to say that I "seem to refuse to listen to different points of views and have real discussion". For your information, I can tell you now that I've disagreed with this particular user, Matt Smith, on several occasions (not just over the past few days, in fact, but over the past two years). And yet, I've also been able to come to agreements with this user on several occasions as well. The reason for this is that Matt Smith is not a single-purpose account user... This user has a range of different views and interests. On the other hand, you've been directly disagreeing with almost every single point I have ever raised. JN

My whole comment was quite balanced, the 1st paragraph explaining to Irtapil's question and backing up what he had felt, and the 2nd one advocating "no need to talk about the motivation". But you completely changed my speech by deleting the 1st paragraph, making it look like I was opposing his idea. This is disgusting.

• Right, and the word "disgusting" certainly doesn't have any offensive (or potentially even racist) connotations. Okay then. JN
• Also, did Irtapil ever even reply to your comment? As far as I can tell, that user gave up on this discussion days ago. They most likely didn't even realise that you had replied to them. JN

And look at that section now, half of the content is filled with your off-topic wall of text!

• Wall of text? Yes. Off-topic? Not really. JN

You said you will delete comments not pinging you in the edit summary?! You just create rules yourself, but not follow the rules? Ridiculous!

• I mean, it's pretty much just common sense. Isn't there a rule on Wikipedia called "no personal attacks"? I'm pretty sure just blatantly singling me out for no good reason, without even directly pinging me, is an example of a personal attack? Correct me if I'm wrong, buddy. JN

Editing others' comments directly is forbidden by the guideline.

• True, it's against the rules to edit other people's comments. However, it's also against the rules to launch personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I still think I had good reasons to be upset by your behaviour. Also, if anyone was making off-topic comments, you're a prime example. Other users, including Horse Eye's Back, specifically called you out for this earlier in the discussions. JN

Abusing the chat system

I have to point out Jargo Nautilus' harmful behaviours in the talk page as well as in this thread.

1. Bludgeoning, replying too much and too frequently, not letting others have time to reply. When another user points out a problem in her lengthy speech, she just pretends to discuss by making another lengthy speech.
   • And, on the other hand, you have a history of setting up podiums for yourself, whereupon you deliver lengthy essays that nobody asked for. You've also uploaded a questionable image to Wikimedia Commons in order to support your twisted views. JN
2. Way too frequent queue jumping. She's been putting her reply at the top of the chat too often for no good reason. I think she has crossed the line.

What do you mean by this? I typically put my comments in an indent, in front of the most recent comment, in order to clearly distinguish the comments apart. I guess this can be seen as "queue jumping", but it's not really my intention. It's better to reply this way rather than to reply at the end of other peoples' comments, since it looks like I'm replying to them instead of to you. This is just an organisational thing... it doesn't have anything to do with preferential treatment of comments. Honestly, I'm surprised you even thought this was a misdemeanour on my part. JN

Bludgeoning

Thanks to The Bushranger for mentioning bludgeoning. Yes, that's what I was trying to say by "possibly spamming", and that's also what I meant by "not really discussing". She was not listening to other people's points, but only making her own claims repeatedly. Even if what she said had been all facts, it was still not a discussion, because she was not responding to others' arguments. Her behaviour would potentially violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TALK#USE (Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject, Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.).

• I've made at least twenty different points, by now. I wouldn't say it's just "making [my] own claims repeatedly". True, I do write lengthy comments, and a lot of comments. However, my comments do have some substance to them, if you'd bother to actually read them. JN
• I have listened to your points, but most of them are highly hypocritical. Also, bear in mind that I usually don't see the need to reply to a person if I agree with their points. When people reply to one another in a thread whilst completely agreeing with one another's points, that is a practice that is colloquially known as "circle jerking" (an echo chamber). If I already agree with you, then there's no point in making any further comments. Sorry dude, but I'm not a person who kisses feet or licks boots. If I haven't addressed one of your points... congratulations, because that probably means I agree with you on that point. JN

What she is supposed to do, imo, is to engage in discussions about how to improve the article, and try to make her points there, providing concise and convincing arguments with reliable sources. I believe that will take no more than a few sentences if she's replying to another user.

• Says the guy who came Chargin' Targin' into this discussion brandishing a Nathan Rich YouTube video that literally just parrots the Chinese Communist Party line... (in fact, you yourself admitted that Nathan Rich has a policy of being non-critical of the Chinese government 100% of the time). JN

But what she's doing instead, is throwing tons of arguments, which may be true facts, but are irrelevant to what others are discussing, and will heavily mess up the talk page.

• It's quite interesting how you claim to be impartial in these discussions, with no agenda (in fact, according to you, there's "no need to talk about the motivation"). However, at the same time, you seem hellbent on trying to discredit me, defame me, and deplatform me. Quite interesting, indeed. JN

I don't know whether she is incapable of understanding what people are talking about, or just deliberately messing around.

• "No personal attacks". JN

Example 1: A whole section that shouldn't have existed

A good example would be this whole section (Something else that is important to point out) she made on the talk page starting with Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC.. This whole section should not have existed! It was about the history of sovereignty and the de facto political status of Taiwan, and whether Taiwan has been legally owned by ROC. But people were discussing the inconsistency between WP articles, the de jure status of Taiwan, and NPOV! See? That's how she's not discussing. Whether Taiwan has been legally owned by ROC might be related to the topic of the de jure status of Taiwan, but why didn't she join the related discussion instead of making a whole new section with a ton of text?

• I'm correct. Taiwan has never ruled by the PRC. I honestly don't know what point you're making here, but this point is extremely relevant to the discussions. I will ping Matt Smith, Horse Eye's Back and Benlisquare. Let's see what they think about this particular point that I raised. JN
• Also, this section is a subheading, so it's not really a "whole new section". JN

Example 2: 5k characters in 43 minutes, interacting with nobody else

She's been making replies too frequently. As I said in this thread, she has made at least 36 edits in 15 hours on that Talk page since the first deletion. Here is another example. In a period of 43 minutes (23:01 to 23:44), she's added 4600+ characers (excluding spaces) (or 5.4k+ characters including spaces), making 8 successive paragraphs without anyone else talking to her in between! And those 8 paragraphs arguing "Taiwan is not part of PRC" were off-topic. My point was, we shouldn't simply say "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence. The thing she was talking about (whether Taiwan is a part of PRC) was just mentioned in my proposal, which did not emphasize on that issue, and explicitly claimed that they could change some of the wordings. If she didn't like the example, she could provide her version. The first thing was to make consensus on the talk page that we should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence. There's no reason to make so many paragraphs discussing a small thing, making it off-topic.

• I actually interacted with Horse Eye's Back for a significant portion of those comments. JN
• It's not off-topic to argue that Taiwan is not part of the PRC... when the idea that Taiwan is part of the PRC was something that you yourself literally were pushing in a previous comment. You said that we should describe Taiwan as "legally a part of China (the PRC)". JN

Example 3: Pretending to discuss by giving just another pointless lengthy speech

A good example would be the following conversation that you can find here. As we can tell from Matt Smith's reactions, Jargo Nautilus was not really replying, but rather pretending to be well-founded with walls of text, which disrupts the talk page. Taiwan and the ROC are not the same. The same thing would not have different histories (History of Taiwan vs History of the Republic of China). Currently, "Taiwan" is just an expedient common name of the ROC; end of story. They are actually two different entities. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus' wall of text The Republic of China was a different entity pre-1949 when compared to post-1949. On Wikipedia, this is actually the current consensus since there's clearly an article titled "Republic of China (1912–1949)". Taiwan (Republic of China) and the People's Republic of China were both successor states of the Republic of China (1912–1949); the country having effectively been split into two post-1949. The original Republic of China government fled in exile to Taiwan and took over the administration of that territory, though that doesn't necessarily indicate that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a direct continuation of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Nominally, it is, but realistically, it isn't, and it hasn't been for decades. The boundary between the Republic of China and the modern Taiwanese republic (that is nominally still called the "Republic of China") is very vague, though one could consider the country to have changed regimes in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held (often, it is considered to have changed a few years earlier, back in 1987, when Martial Law was lifted by the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo). EDIT: Actually, the descriptor "original Republic of China government" is somewhat misleading. One cannot deny that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT-led ROC regime on Taiwan came under heavy scrutiny, especially from former politicians of the ROC who remained in PRC-ruled mainland China, with regard to exactly how "legitimate" it was, and whether it represented the country of China as a whole, or was merely a "clique" of a failed dictator more interested in preserving his own power than serving the people. EDIT2: Here's the first sentence of that article that I linked: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as China is a historical sovereign state in East Asia that was based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." EDIT3: Here's an older version of that first sentence, since I noticed that it had been recently changed: "The Republic of China (ROC) was a sovereign state based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, the ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949. But Taiwan and the ROC are still two different entities, and that's why each has its own history. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus' wall of text There's some truth to your point here, but there are different definitions as to what "Taiwan" is. Taiwan is a single island, it's an archipelago (the main island plus minor surrounding islands) and it's a country. Those are the three main definitions of Taiwan here on Wikipedia. So, true, Taiwan the island is not the same thing as Taiwan the country... But Taiwan the country... is a country. "Taiwan" is an alternative name for the Republic of China. By that logic, Taiwan is the same thing as the Republic of China. Even if "Taiwan" is not the official name of the country which is known as the Republic of China, it's still a very commonly used name for the country, and even government officials and administrative bodies within Taiwan refer to the country with that name (alongside the official name). For Christ's sake, the Republic of China passport has "TAIWAN" smack bang in the middle of it. So, your argument is not that Taiwan and the Republic of China are different things... Instead, you are arguing that the already well-established practice of referring to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" was wrong from the beginning, should have never gained traction and should be done away with immediately. Unfortunately, there's a fat chance of that ever happening, since the majority of people around the world know the Republic of China as "Taiwan" these days. When people do come across the name "Republic of China", they often mistake this for the official name of mainland China's government; even Donald Trump made this mistake, I recall. So yeah... The Republic of China is Taiwan simply because that's what international society as a whole believes. So, you're not gonna win this argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Says the guy who failed to make clear his definition of "Taiwan" before making the "one and the same" assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly dude, that's some low-hanging fruit. That discussion didn't involve you, and it had nothing to do with the current "Nathan Rich saga". In any case, Matt Smith and I have seemingly come to some agreements recently, and from time to time anyway, we have agreed on things in the past. My way of conversing with people is a bit unorthodox, but I'm not exactly a brick wall. JN
• I honestly do not have anything against Matt Smith. We've engaged in some fruitful discussions in the past. Matt Smith is generally a good Wikipedian. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Matt Smith is not exactly on your side, so don't go thinking that they'll come rushing to your defence at every opportunity they get. JN

Abused queue jumping

Jargo Nautilus has been constantly putting her reply on the top (multiple indentations) with no good reason.
Examples: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.

• Facepalm. JN

Quoting from a related discussion I can find, this kind of behaviour should be done out of an honest good-faith desire to maintain clarity in a complex discussion involving many replies, but not out of a desire to get their voice at the top of the pile.

• That's literally what I'm doing, dude. The reason for doing this was that other people had already replied to these messages. It actually is for clarity. This is something that I do on a regular basis. I even do it to my own comments. For example, here. I added a comment in front of my own volley of comments, with an indent. The purpose of this was to distinguish it from my other comments. JN

In my opinion, she's doing it to too much.

• I honestly didn't even realise that people would view this as a problem, but, okay then. You're really struggling to find ways to incriminate me, dude. This is a non-issue, as far as I'm aware. JN

Constantly being uncivil

Evidence of being uncivil

1: that man is an absolute joke

• Not untrue. Pinging Horse Eye's Back. JN

2: Now, I know you're just salty because you lost your China job over some PowerPoint that you threw together in half an hour.

• Come on dude, you've got to admit that this is funny (and rather witty, if I do say so myself). I even showed it to an internet friend of mine and she was like "lmao your comments on there are fire, get his ass". JN

3: I honestly have no clue what this guy's schtick is..., It's seriously confusing, concerning and comical.

• What's your point here, exactly? I literally don't know what your schtick is. An explanation would be much appreciated. Also, I'm a poet. I love alliteration. JN

4: Also, did that bopomofo In wkpd just assume my gender? What makes him think I'm male?

• Bopomofo actually isn't a curse word, despite sounding sort of like one. I could have called you a "banana" or a "peanut" instead. Just a filler word, dude. JN

5: Begone, communist shill!

• This was also a joke, dude. My political views actually sort of lean towards communism? I'm not anti-communist, exactly. I'm just anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP aren't even real communists... they're more like fascists or, at the very least, ultranationalists. JN

6: Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a criminal, a fugitive and a fraud?

• I actually cited a real article from Taiwan News that outlines Nathan Rich's criminal record. These accusations aren't exactly groundless. Far from it, in fact. JN

7: Nathan Rich is a felon.

• Again, I cited a real Taiwan News article that directly accuses Nathan Rich of being a felon. JN

Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

1: So many people here are just trying to strongarm some kind of agenda without listening to the facts.

• Not groundlessly. I literally saw Nathan Rich's video almost as soon as it was released, and I just knew that the Taiwan Wikipedia article was going to be brigaded within a matter of days or even hours. That's why, when I saw your initial comment here, I was completely unsurprised, albeit still very irritated. JN

2: However, many of the Wikipedians here who are pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country are doing so in bad faith...

• Explain how I'm wrong here? Why else would someone be pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country? If someone is saying that Taiwan is not a country because it's instead a part of the People's Republic of China (which is what you actually said, by the way), then I consider that statement to be one made in bad faith. My point that I was making is that I actually don't think Taiwan is a country. However, I believe that Taiwan is also not part of the People's Republic of China at the same time. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. JN

3: ...In wkpd's Wikipedia activity so far has been rather suspicious., ...why is he trying so hard to hide his motivations?, ...not be an issue for him to divulge his intentions and the people whom he works for?

• Your activity is unusual, to say the least. It would be helpful for you to divulge your motivations. There's no harm in asking... You don't have anything to hide, right? JN

4: I have a feeling that Nathan's goonies are brigading this talk page right now.

• This one's quite funny actually, since I said "goonies" instead of "goons". In any case, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this statement. Nathan Rich is a known troll. He's infamous not just among the Taiwanese English-speaking community but among American social democrats and anarchists in general. Many Americans see Nathan Rich as a guy who purely relies on his "whiteness" in order to appeal to a Chinese audience. He's seen as a guy who "understands China", even though he has no academic background on anything related to China whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He's literally just a businessman who parrots the Chinese Communist Party line in order to make money. I mean, props to him for finding a niche market to exploit... Truly the work of a shrewd capitalist. JN

Disruptively refactored my speech

In the last 24 hours, she has refactored 2 of my comments. But it seems she's just doing that at her own will, against me. She's not respecting Wikipedia:Refactoring, and she doesn't know what WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM mean, while she's putting them on the title of the Collapse Template.

The 1st one, disruptive refactoring with no respect to Wikipedia:Refactoring

Diff.
She's reducing the clarity and readability of that page, which violates Wikipedia:Refactoring.
And it seems JN has no idea what WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM mean, or maybe she was just too focused on removing things she doesn't like.

• It's a soapbox because you're parroting literal Chinese Communist Party propaganda and you've created your own "podium" to do so. Honestly, it's extremely hypocritical how you've called me out for making my own new sections (such as the one about Nathan Rich, or the one about the PRC's historical claim to Taiwan), whereas you've made several such sections yourself. JN

The 2nd one, kind of OK, but...

Diff.
This refactoring is kind of OK, because I myself have been planning to collapse that blue box. When I made that edit, I didn't know how to use a Collapse Template yet. If I did, I probably would have collapsed it.
Still, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM were unsuitable. And her edit summary was More nonsense. What makes you so special that you can make, essentially, an entire infobox to spout your nonsensical claims?.

• Your big blue "infobox" was very irritating. Why don't you just comment normally like everyone else is doing? In any case, nobody even bothered to respond to any of the points you raised, probably because it was making their eyes bleed. JN

I don't know why she would find useful information nonsense. Her edit summary, instead, is nonsense, belittling my efforts, and misrepresenting my intent.

• Literally. JN

I made that info box to let them know more about the history of that talk page, so that they would not fall into the same discussions that had happened before.
And I actually got a thank from user Davidbena after making that blue box.

• Right, I don't care. JN

@EdJohnston and Drmies:
There's more than just deleting comments. In general, I think she just doesn't respect the rules.

• I can't be bothered to reply to this properly. Just read the rest of my comments. I've been sitting here for three hours typing nonstop. JN

I'm looking for a solution here. Can I collapse her wall of text? Or do I report somewhere when I see her doing the same thing again?

• I mean, fair's fair, since I collapsed your own walls of texts. Go ahead, dude. I honestly don't care at this point. Go eat potatoes, or something. JN

She's been constantly not listening, not respectful (to the rules and other people), and uncivil.

• Oh, I've been listening, alright. I've been listening for three hours straight, at this point. Though, "listening" is not synonymous with "agreeing". JN

She's repeating the same thing over and over and over again, messing around everywhere.

• Not really. I've made a lot of different points. JN

I'm very frustrated by her. And it's wasted me a lot of time.

• Glad I could be of service. JN

I think her behaviour should be closely monitored from now on, until she has learned to respect the policies/guidelines.

• I've been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now. No one has really gone to such lengths to incriminate me as you have. This is despite the fact that most of the users I've previously interacted with were well-experienced, such as Matt Smith and Horse Eye's Back. On the other hand, you only started using Wikipedia last week. JN

Don't know if it's possible, but limiting her amount of edits seems to be a good solution.

• You know you're way out of line here, right? JN

I've tried talking to her, incuding earlier today in this thread, but it seems she just won't listen.

• You've "tried" by trying your absolute hardest to defame, denounce and deride me. JN

@HeartGlow30797, Tenryuu, CaradhrasAiguo, EEng, and Valereee:

Maybe you want to be notified of this progress.

• @Matt Smith, Horse Eye's Back, Slatersteven, Benlisquare, and Zoozaz1: JN

--In wkpd (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• ~~~~

I will now proceed to reply to this. I may have ranted a lot, but you've created a mess here and I need visuals to respond. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

what is this?

@Jargo Nautilus, In wkpd, Horse Eye's Back, and Matt Smith: What is this? I seem to be tagged in it, but i cannot work out what I'm looking at here? Irtapil (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like something from back when Jargo Nautilus was brought to ANI, they were blocked the same day as their last edit here for a random, blatant, and unforgivable act of outing mostly unrelated to the above discussion. I will note that in hindsight JN was right about In wkpd. Thats a sketchy account, I would have expected them to keep editing but they don’t appear to edit at all after JN’s block... It looks like they check ANI for a few more days and then go dark. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you are a sketchy account, very likely a Single-purpose account. It's very easy to tell from your user contributions. But I have no problem with what you're doing, since you're not hurting me, but the reputation of WP.

There's no reason for me to keep editing WP. To me, WP is a place to learn rather than a propaganda tool, which you seem to have been using it as.

Looking back, I think it was a mistake for me to get involved in the discussion of the Taiwan talk page. It was nothing but a waste of time.

• I overestimated the rationality and civility of Wikipedians, especially those active on the Taiwan talk page.
• I overestimated the Administrators' ability of maintaining a civil and functional environment wherein progress can actually be made.
• I overestimated the determination and quantity of Wikipedians (e.g. Irtapil) who are qualified and willing to protect the neutrality of WP.

In wkpd (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@In wkpd: I don't think Horse Eye's Back is a single-purpose account. They do far too many and too diverse edits for them to be considered as such. They focus on particular topics, sure, but that's not synonymous with being a single-purpose account. Actually, you have no real evidence of this accusation, and it's a pretty damning accusation too, one that shouldn't be thrown around lightly. In fact, if, according to you, it is very easy to tell from your [HEB's] user contributions, then it shouldn't be too much trouble for you to find evidence of this accusation, should it? By the way, the idea that a person is using Wikipedia as a "propaganda tool" is also an accusation that should not be thrown around lightly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I was blocked for outing JadeEditor (on your talk page, Horse Eye's Back), who was known to me elsewhere, hence why I was even able to out them in the first place. I had initially met this person on another website around a year earlier. When I saw them on Wikipedia, I instantly recognised them from their username. I had said "Hi, Jade," with a hyperlink to their account on the other website, and I was immediately indef-blocked for this. In hindsight, I probably should have contacted them directly on the other website, and I would have been able to avoid all of this drama if I had done so. EDIT: Somewhat ironically, shortly after I was blocked from Wikipedia, another user over at the Taiwan article contacted me on another website, where I go by the same username as I do on Wikipedia. They said that they did so in order to discuss the Taiwan article with me. I accepted their proposal, even though we were on a gaming website that wasn't at all related to Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Irtapil: No need to ping Jargo Nautilus. She's currently blocked indefinitely. Yeah, only she. Horse Eye's Back was using singular they, in case you get mistaken.

As for what this has to do with you, have you looked into the collapse template named "More details" here? Or you can just traverse through my tiny history of user contributions to see the whole story.

And by the way, when I was on the ANI being accused of WP:NOTHERE by an admin, I pinged you but you didn't show up. Were you simply not getting the notification, or you just wanted to stay away? You might well suspect I was hired by CCP deep down in your heart, but don't you think I had always been pushing forward the neutrality of WP, which was totally fine to support?

No matter what, I have decided not to get involved in these issues in the future. In wkpd (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm "impressed" that the interpersonal politics among editors is managing to almost overshadow the political tension between Taiwan and the mainland. Irtapil (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)