195.135.49.168

This user has compounded an incident of a personal attack against Jargo Nautilus, now on two strikes out of three

I am officially informing this user that they have compounded an incident of a personal attack against me over at the article Talk:China–Lithuania relations, which is now on two strikes out of three (on the third strike, I will officially report the multiple incidents of harassment to the official administrator channels). Previously, a seemingly different user (though, it could also be the same person since both users were IP rather than registered) performed a personal attack against me in the aforementioned talk article. I called out the original personal attack, and after much careful deliberation, I decided to take the measures I deemed appropriate and necessary in order to resolve the dispute. I politely informed the original user that I felt threatened; at the same time, I told them that I did not want to inflame the dispute and would rather we move away from disruptive personal attacks and focus on the article at hand. As it stands, this second user has decided to not only perform their own personal attack against me but also to "restore" the previous personal attack of the other user. This is obviously disruptive behaviour... I've already essentially reported the first user for harassing me (through semi-official means since I don't want to escalate the situation), and now a second user has blatantly ignored my original report and is performing even further harassment against me, even though I've already indicated that I feel threatened and would much rather focus on the article at hand than escalate the situation to the official administrator channels. This current message in and of itself serves as an official marker of the proper procedures having taken place; the entire point of posting a message like this is to prove that I've already tried to resolve the dispute peacefully and in private before taking the dispute to the official administrator channels. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The following is a quotation from your Wikipedia user page (emphasis mine):

(Personal attack removed)

(Jargo Nautilus), please refrain from removing contributions by other users exposing your partiality to the subject under discussion, in your own words - this practice is well established and also explains why Wikipedia does not distinguish between registered and unregistered users (registered users may be biased, unregistered users may be not). This comment has been reviewed by another user, highlighted in green and not questioned.

May I also point out that you have edited this page and the article in a way that requires manual editing to revert; are you doing this on purpose, i.e. vandalism?

Clearly, quoting you in not a personal attack on you, or am I missing something?195.135.49.168 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not bothered to read your convoluted reply here. But I just want to ask you something. Do you understand what it means to conduct a personal attack (WP:PA)? Like, it doesn't even matter whether you think you are right or wrong or whatever... A personal attack is easily able to be identified no matter the situation. The definition of a personal attack is when a user is criticised not for their actions but rather for their qualities as a person... The reason that personal attacks are frowned upon at Wikipedia is that they are extremely disruptive and are not conducive to improving the actual content within the article itself. Clearly, your comments (are you the same person as the previous IP user? I really have no idea) are only intended to attack me personally rather than to logically critique my edits and improve the actual content within the article itself. You are basically trying to "witchhunt" me or whatever. It doesn't matter whether you think you are right; harassment is harassment no matter who is right. Basically, you have to stop with this behaviour or else you could get into serious trouble. I've already reported you to an administrator in private; I haven't taken the dispute to the highest levels yet. I honestly just want to resolve the dispute peacefully, and I do not intend to escalate it to ridiculous levels. Your insistence on harassing me is not improving the content of the article in the slightest; this is harassment, plain and simple, and it is plain to see this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have zero interest in you or in "personally" attacking you (I have no idea who you are). You are a biased party and you yourself said so; saying that you said so has nothing to do with a "personal attack".195.135.49.168 (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

At this point, it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the administrators think. I am now waiting for the first administrator that I contacted in private to reply to me. Once they have replied to me, I will figure out what to do from there. Hopefully, the dispute can be resolved peacefully. However, if it can't be resolved as it stands, then I think I will be forced to take this dispute to the official administrator channels. I've already given you several chances at this point to redeem yourself without being reported to the administrators. Clearly, you are completely uninterested in pursuing any kind of peaceful dispute resolution. Right now, I am being relatively polite and civil. I am not interested in attacking you or whatever, but I am really rather concerned that you are unable to recognise how your behaviour has crossed the line on multiple occasions at this point. It does not seem that you are willing to redeem yourself right now, and I honestly feel quite threatened by your behaviour at this point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Another comment — Has it occurred to you that I want to remove my lengthy comment from April that you misquoted in the article Talk:China–Lithuania relations because it contains very sensitive information? I honestly don't care that you think I'm biased; I've already told you that I've never denied this; I'm obviously critical of the Chinese government, plus I have Taiwanese ancestry. With that being said, the information in that comment of mine from April is extremely sensitive, since it discusses my family members, among other things. That comment was left on my own user page many months ago during a period of mental health difficulties for me. I was inactive for several months and neglected to remove that comment from my user page, which is out of date at this point. At this point, I am solely interested in removing the quote of mine from April; I have never challenged the notion that I'm biased. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider such information sensitive (your IP is not known nor is your personal identity known or traceable), and if it were, it was your decision to publish it in a public forum - you were effectively flaunting your bias as a feather in your hat. Since I am not aware of any government prosecuting Wikipedia users in the way you describe, I consider this scaremongering and playing victim.195.135.49.168 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you not see the part just now where I mentioned that my previous publishing of that comment back in April was due to mental health issues? Obviously, those issues are not affecting me at the present moment, and I've decided that I don't want to display that information anymore (I already deleted it from my own user page). Plus, it's quite obvious that the quote from April (which, if you pay attention, was actually a specific reply to another user from a past discussion) has been quoted completely out of context in this article Talk:China–Lithuania relations. In terms of the information being in a public forum, has it not occurred to you that you are now making the information even MORE public than it already was? There are different degrees of "publicness"; it's not so black and white. Obviously, moving my comment from my own user page and into the talk page of an article is an escalation in the degree of "publicness". My own user page is indeed public, but it is not AS public as the talk page of that article. You've escalated the degree of publicness of my comment, and I've already indicated multiple times that I don't consent to this action. It's not a matter of censorship but rather a matter of protecting myself. If I have information about myself that's public, then it was my fault for posting it in the first place, but it is also your fault for propagating that information even further into the public eye even after I've clearly indicated that I do not consent to this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry about your mental health difficulties (saw this just as you were to type the follow-up comment) and I support you fully in recovering from them. However, mental health issues does not mean that private individuals like me are obligated to give you a free pass. Please check which type of copyright governs your contributions on Wikipedia and please be clear about it in the future.195.135.49.168 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it I am almost fascinated talking to you. If this was the forum for random intellectuals encounters, I would certainly like to confront you with provocative pieces of information, such as that Fulbright-backed study of Triad infiltration of Taiwanese politics (circa year 2000) which found it at at least 50% at the local level. Too bad Wikipedia is not for that.

Are you agreeing to redeem yourself? If not, I will be carrying through with my report to the administrator that has already occurred. Bear in mind that my conditions are that you delete the misquoted comment of mine from April from the article Talk:China–Lithuania relations and also from your own user page here. I honestly am not concerned with "bias" (again, I've never denied being biased). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist; as such I do not believe in "redemption".

Oh and no, it was not "misquoted" - I have always stated your comment was quoted verbatim and in full.195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I take that as a no, then? In that case, consider yourself officially reported, dispute officially unresolved, and my mercy towards you completely exhausted. All possible means to prosecute you will now be undertaken. Have a nice day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Boo-hoo.195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Took another look at your user page and specifically your ideologies. Not a single Asian ideology and no stances on Asian geopolitics (except for China, HK and Taiwan). If you were to rectify your bias, studying Asian history and ideologies may be confusing at first but would counterbalance your, in my experience, militant, radical and verbally aggressive stances. May I suggest the (Taoist version of) the Middle Way (purely as a thought experiment)?195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am also not a Christian, nor am I a Taoist or a Buddhist (I'm not sure why you presumed that I'd be a Christian). In fact, I'm an Atheist, which isn't even really a religion but rather the lack of a religion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I am predicting that you're probably going to lose the case with the administrators. I will put in word with the administrators to go easy on you and give you a chance to improve your behaviour. Consider that my final act of goodwill towards you. In any case, the information displayed in this talk page clearly demonstrates that you've refused to step down after crossing the line in terms of your disruptive behaviour. It clearly shows that you are unwilling to improve your behaviour prior to the involvement of the administrators. It also shows that I've clearly attempted in good faith to negotiate peacefully with you and that I've initially avoided escalating the dispute to the highest levels. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I never presumed you were anything - it is just that "redemption" is a Christian doctrine (and also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand). I'm still surprised at your levels of verbal aggressiveness and obsession over this issue that is entirely of your own creation.

This discussion is getting a bit long, but I want to add a reply to that comment wherein you said that you weren't misquoting me. In fact, regardless of whether you were quoting me verbatim or not, you were indeed definitely misquoting me since you were taking a comment that I wrote in an entirely separate conversation from several months ago and inserting it into the conversation that was presently occurring between you and me. Notwithstanding the fact that the comment from April was irrelevant to the present discussion, it was also taken out of context since the previous discussion was with a completely different person (if it had been with you in the past, then that would have been a different story since there would have been at least some form of continuity between the parties involved in those two distinct conversations). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are stating is not correct. The text I took was not from a conversation but was a single/largest/only block of text in your user home page. There was no references to it being part of any context beyond itself.195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As of now I will not be checking this page for further comments anymore, at least not until the weekend.195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Reply to your previous comment:) For the record, you don't have to be Asian in order to edit Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. Technically, anyone from any background is allowed to edit any article about any country that they so choose. All that is required of them is to be able to edit constructively and with reliable sources. So, your point about me essentially not being a real Asian is moot, since I don't even have to be, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The text is definitely from another conversation (in fact, I had extracted it from that conversation and inserted it into my user page at the time). You can see that I even mentioned a person called "In wkpd", whom I was directly addressing during that conversation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As for replying to this conversation, you're probably going to have to come back soon, because you have indeed been reported to an administrator by me, albeit in private. I've started off with a private report, or more like a consultation for advice from this one administrator, and after that, if need be, there's a good chance that I will take this matter to the official administrator channels. By the way, I have not reported you to a specific biased administrator or anything like that... I essentially chose someone at random from the active administrators list, whom I don't think I've ever interacted with before now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

<::::::::::Oh wait - a cursory look at your Talk page led to the realization that you are known for removing blocks of text from article Talk pages just like you did here! I quote: "Repeated removal of a talk page discussion. Regarding your repeated unexplained removals at Talk:Uyghur genocide: although there was pointyness and frustration in this section's original post, the editor is still asking questions in good faith (including something about this article specifically)." What is your excuse now - still (unproven) "mental health problems" or something else?195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And that is not all - there is more: "Someone is deleting others' replies and messing up this Talk page. This user (@Jargo Nautilus)

Deleted part of my reply (@Irtapil: This was my full reply.)

Deleted a bunch of previous replies (including some of himself's), starting with removing a Collapse Template on his previous speech (note that the Collapse template was not added by me).

See the before and now (before, now), he deleted the whole section (Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?) with other users' speech and his own bad record. And added a new section (Nathan Rich's opinion does not matter) to replace it.

And much more where I found it (on your Talk page).

195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll have you know that it's actually part of Wikipedia's official policies that users should not be judged by their past behaviour but rather by their present behaviour. It clearly says in this section (Why personal attacks are harmful) of the policy article WP:PA:

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Your behavior is repeat-offending and I added a relevant section to your Talk page regarding this incident.195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, you are actually guiltier of the very thing that you accused me of than I myself am. I've explained this in the talk section that you opened up on my user talk page. Anyway, have a nice day... This discussion was a massive waste of time, but at least it shows that I was willing to attempt to resolve this dispute peacefully before being forced to escalate it to the official administrator channels. For the record, In wkpd, the previous fellow who got me banned (and I have nothing against that person personally), didn't exactly carry out their report against me in the same way... In wkpd basically just escalated the dispute to the highest levels at the very beginning. So, I've actually been a lot less aggressive towards you in terms of reporting your disruptive behaviour than In wkpd was towards me in the past. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting you banned; clearly Wikipedia and the stances you take on it are an important part of your life. I have a feeling you will enter public life at some stage or otherwise go through life holding strong opinions. What I object to is the mechanics of your editorial policy (you could improve your arguments instead of deleting blocks of multiple Talk pages). On the personal level, I feel some of the issues you are commenting on are imperfectly researched, but Wikipedia is always imperfect. I also find personally objectionable your willingness to fight wars on Wikipedia for issues you profess to believe in instead of fighting purely via force of argument. You have the energy, but I would suggest you reflect on how to improve your argumentation. If we continue this I'm afraid I might fall into some sort of Platonic/homosocial love with you.195.135.49.168 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your above comment is somewhat convoluted again. I won't respond entirely, but I will say this; it's extraordinarily unlikely that you will be able to get me banned. In this dispute, I'm the one who originally reported you, and the expectation was that you would agree to negotiate peacefully with me, and then we could settle this dispute without administrator involvement. When the administrators come over here and see what has actually happened, they probably won't care about my past convictions... they will be more concerned about your evident unwillingness to negotiate peacefully with someone (myself) who is evidently willing to negotiate peacefully. Several times already, I have suggested that we could resolve this matter behind closed doors... You have refused every single time, for reasons that baffle me. My requests aren't unreasonable in the slightest. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not refusing to negotiate - I'm merely stating that the arguments you are putting forward are not sufficiently convincing. But I'll passively reflect on this over coming days.195.135.49.168 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I take it that you believe that your arguments are convincing? Such as the idea that I've verbally abused specific people? When and where, exactly? I'd like you to provide some hard, undeniable evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

One does not have to insult specific people to be verbally abusive towards other Wikipedians on a specific article (see above).195.135.49.168 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm bored of this topic now. You clearly have no evidence. With that being said, I've just noticed something very interesting... Did you edit the article China–Lithuania relations after I had already reported you on your user talk page here? That's surely not helpful for your case. I don't know exactly how it will play in, but I don't think it's a good look. For the record, I haven't touched the main article itself in ages... I've kept my hands off of that article after November 27 precisely in order to avoid being incriminated with editorial misconduct. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

On that note, it's also interesting to point out that one of your edits was flagged automatically for citing a deprecated (unreliable) source (Wikipedia:DEPS), that being the infamous Global Times. I can see that you've written "the Chinese side says such and such", rather than "this is what is true according to X source", so you're definitely using this source in order to portray an opinion rather than a fact, which I commend you for (it seems that you've learnt from the comment that I wrote on the corresponding talk page regarding opinions versus facts). With that being said, I'm not sure whether the Global Times is a good source to use even when you are only citing it explicitly as an opinion piece rather than as straight facts... There seems to be a unanimous disregard for this particular media company among the Wikipedia editors community. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I may have something to add later to this comment upon closer reading of your points later, but on the question you posed regarding Global Times, Lithuania has no international media of its ow; its coverage in English is primarily paid for by the serving government (LRT is a national state-funded broadcaster prevented by law from conducting any supplementary commercial activities; DELFI English is funded by the state). In such circumstances we must come up with the best solution to represent differing stances; GT references can easily be replaced by Lithuanian mainstream media references which quote either GT or the Chinese charge d'affaires on the subject of bilateral relations. I'm confident you noticed that I do not consider Lithuanian government (or connected) sources as necessarily more credible that Chinese government (or connected) sources. Should GT be disregarded in my opinion? Yes if presented as the sole source (as any other sole source, for example, SCMP which although not directly state-funded has, in my opinion, serious issues from ownership to editorial to comment moderation); otherwise depends on how references help illuminate a particular context.

I have 0 interest in how something "looks", nor should anybody care. Wikipedia works on the basis of what is true as defined by being credibly referenced. I plan to edit the article further today because I have located references to back inclusion of additional material.195.135.49.168 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed something just now that should have occurred to me earlier... Your conduct, generally speaking, and especially involving your original comments of harassment towards me, falls under the category of "WP:FORUM"... i.e. you've basically violated that policy. As far as I'm aware, the majority of my edits to Talk:China–Lithuania relations did not violate the policy as I was specifically discussing the arrangement of the article itself rather than the subject matter that the article is about. — On Wikipedia we question governments and businessmen, and anybody else. I assume you have a POV that is aligned with the "claims made by the Lithuanian government or a Lithuanian businessman"? Are you editing Wikipedia on behalf of the Lithuanian government? The answer you seek is in Wikipedia policies: an unsubstantiated claim is one that cannot be backed by further evidence. Any Wikipedia user can call out unsubstantiated claims from Lithuanian, Chinese, Taiwanese or any other government. The following is a quotation from your Wikipedia user page (emphasis mine): ... Do you still claim to have no POV on the current subject? — I mean, obviously, you have as poor an understanding of the rules of Wikipedia as I do (I'd wager that your understanding is significantly poorer than mine), but I think it's fairly obvious that your comments were delving into the realm of philosophy rather than having any kind of relevance to the actual article at hand. My own comments on my user page were also philosophical, but it was my own user page that I had originally written them on, not on Talk:China–Lithuania relations. You've quoted my comments from my user page into that article (talk page), in an attempt to muddy the waters, but really, I actually never went off-topic. You and you alone did. Look at my original comments and most of my replies... they were directly related to editorial procedures relating directly to the article; i.e. they were completely on topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's obvious by now that you and this user — User talk:139.47.34.245 — are the same person in real life. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification re the point above — The initial offending comments were made by that IP address rather than by this IP address. However, the original IP user has not replied to me in a day, whereas you have spent something like five hours straight harassing me over the other IP user's edits, and you have even restored the other IP user's own harassment of me. There's no hard evidence that you are the owner of the other IP user account, but based on the pattern of behaviour here, I think it can be extrapolated that you made those harassment comments using that original IP address and then switched to another IP address, probably accidentally (inadvertently), in order to subsequently continue your harassment against me. Both IP addresses can be traced to roughly the same location. In any case, this is part of the reason that I am annoyed by IP users... it is difficult to figure out who is who, because IP addresses change depending on the device/network that is being used by the same person. By the way, if anyone actually goes and looks at the mess that you've created on the page Talk:China–Lithuania relations, they will see that you've essentially combined two separate comments by your two IP addresses into a single comment... which is just ridiculous. I don't consider you to be a Wikipedia:SOCK user, but it's still not a good practise to basically use two separate accounts in the form of IP addresses. Not good at all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not read this in detail but I would refrain from trying to "trace" other users when you are yourself trying to mask your identity by trying to excise from Wikipedia even information about yourself that you yourself published. You understanding of Wikipedia policies remains in significant doubt due to your previous Wikipedia block; the number of grievances others have expressed about your editing behaviour on your Wikipedia Talk page; quality lacking in your argumentation; and most importantly your apparent failure to understand Wikipedia as a community of equals governed by pursuit of truth (Enlightment principles).195.135.49.168 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that I've been banned in the past actually means that I have a much stronger understanding of the exact processes that can lead to a ban than you do... It is for this very reason that I'm confident that I am not currently at risk of being banned, whereas you actually somewhat are (to what degree, I don't know). I seemingly have a lot more experience than you in terms of editing Wikipedia, and despite my misdemeanours in the past, I've been able to subsequently learn from my mistakes and improve my behaviour. On the other hand, you are currently at the stage in your Wikipedia career it seems wherein you are only just now making mistakes for the first time... And, I suspect, you will soon also be forced to learn from those mistakes, just as I was forced to learn from my own. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Global Times

Just so you know, someone has reverted your edits to the article China–Lithuania relations re the Global Times. From what I can tell, this user is an administrator (Wikipedia:Administrators), so I highly recommend that you don't revert that person's edits. I'm just a small fry, but reverting an administrator's edits is basically a death sentence. It does seem that you are not allowed to use the Global Times as a source after all, even if you are only citing it as an opinion piece and not as straight facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedians do not have an organizational hierarchy, thus there is no reason why I should refrain from editing this or any other Wikipedia page provided I am in compliance with Wikipedia policies. I believe Neutral POV policy takes precedence over Global Times censorship by another Wikipedia. The person who reverted has a history of controversial edits and subsequent accusations of bias, something he states on his Wikipedia user page.195.135.49.168 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedians do not have an organizational hierarchy... — Quite frankly, I believe that you are wrong here. On Wikipedia, administrators have more power than normal users such as you and I have... For starters, they have the ability to block or ban people. That's something that neither you nor I can do. | Regarding the Global Times, I'm not talking about my personal views here... I'm talking about Wikipedia's policies. According to Wikipedia's policies, the Global Times has essentially been blacklisted from usage as a source. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Indentations

I've just noticed that you reverted one of my edits on your talk page here regarding indentations. When I reply to myself, the comment should stay at the same indentation level as my previous comment. The indentation reversion of yours was subsequently corrected by me; at the time, I didn't notice that you had intentionally reverted my edit; I thought it was accidental. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No I have not - I believe it was automatic revert by Wikimedia's software. I have not reverted any of your edits on this page.195.135.49.168 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Mate, I'm not accusing you of anything here, I'm just advising you on how to properly format talk page discussions. In any case, here is the edit wherein I believe that you reverted my edit (whether accidentally or on purpose) — [1]. It clearly says "Manual revert". Not automatic, and a reversion certainly did occur. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The specific ANI discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ad hominem attack (NPA) incident at a talk page for a minor China-related article — Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A word of advice

Please, for the love of Buddha, do not get mad about this ANI discussion. Currently, the ANI discussion is ONLY a request to remove the original ad hominem attack conducted by the other user (IP user 139.47.34.245). You have been linked into this ANI discussion because you reinstated that user's personal attack against me, so you are a third party involved in the dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

---