Jargo Nautilus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• JM2023 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)

• Jargo Nautilus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Jargo Nautilus was indefinitely topic banned from modern armed conflicts in Eastern Europe including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on 26 January 2023, and blocked for the ban violation on January 28, 2023 by Callanecc. The account of JM2023 was created 4 days later, on February 2, 2023. As is evident from the contributions, JM2023 is mainly interested in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, from which Jargo Nautilus was banned, as well as Israel-Palestine and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria related articles which were also topics of interest to Jargo Nautilus. He also has a similar manner of making personal comments about other editors [1] [2] Grandmaster 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by JM2023

Firstly, I was not warned or informed of this, and the only reason I stumbled into it was because a user called HistoryofIran just happened to link to it in an unrelated discussion about someone else. Does policy indicate that I should have been informed of it or warned first?

Secondly, I will address the evidence proposed against me. The first item being: The account of JM2023 was created 4 days later, on February 2, 2023. I don't think this has enough standing on it's own. A 4-day gap between a topic ban and a new account; if I am the banned editor, I clearly was in no hurry to get a new account up and running. Not to mention the fact that the account in question is still in use as of October 9 2023.

And what about my own contributions? As is evident from the contributions, JM2023 is mainly interested in Nagorno-Karabakh related articles. Well, let's have a look: my first edit that had anything to do with NK was at 16:23, 30 August 2023, despite my account being created on 2 February 2023. So supposedly my "main interest" is something I ignored for 7 months in favour of editing articles like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure talk pages, British monarchy talk pages, Muhammad's talk page, random submissions at ITN (which I did not find the other editor ever engaging in), and Nova Scotia pages (keep in mind the other editor is from Australia with 0 mentions of anywhere outside of Southeast and East Asia on his user page). During which time I racked up about 100 or so edits out of my present ~580, most of which are minor corrections or talk page replies. Doesn't seem like much of a rush to go after NK articles or go into blockade discussion (a talk page I have still never edited). And also, the allegation that my "main interest is in NK articles" seems to come from the fact that I've extensively participated in discussion at Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, which is the only page even tangentially related to NK that I've ever edited (except for getting an extended-confirmed protected request for a section on the blockade into the NK article). I've never even edited the actual page, despite now being extended-confirmed. And that article just happened to be about the biggest news story in the world when I started there from ITN. I even noted my disinterest with joining WikiProject Artsakh when I was specifically asked to join.

What else? Israel-Palestine which is a topic I just started editing in today (except for one vote in the judicial protest article which I was requested to do by Yapperbot, and one ITN comment because its the biggest story in the world right now and on that date also (October 10) and every single person there also voted to support), and which consists solely of a few minor points on a few talk pages, and a few typo corrections; this topic is now the biggest news story in the world and has probably the most active editing on any Wikipedia right now. What else? Chechen Republic of Ichkeria in which I once edited a minor new page and participated in a deletion discussion over a month ago. I couldn't find any Chechnya-related edits for the other editor.

Let's look at the other editor's contributions: Turkish earthquake, Dua Lipa, metric tons of random user talk page contributions, Donetsk and Luhansk (an "interest" we clearly don't share: I've never once edited an article or talk page on Ukraine-Russia except a move discussion on the Wagner crash because it was in ITN at the time and was the biggest story in the world), and more Russia-Ukraine and Armenia pages. And also Bougainville (which is not once found in my own contributions) and Australian crimes (again not once found in my own contributions).

I'll also note that these supposed similarities disappear as soon as one takes a mere cursory glance at the other user's user page: he considers Chechnya occupied by Russia, implying he would be on the opposite side of discussion from me regarding Chechnya's current existence. He also called the Ukrainian recognition of Chechnya (which didn't even really occur at all, meaning that's another opinion opposite of mine) "beautiful", despite the fact that, you know, Chechnya was ruled by Muslim extremist militants who sponsored terrorism against Russian schoolchildren, sponsored invasions of Dagestan by terrorist organizations, and executed gay people for being gay. So there's another opinion opposite of mine.

As for the supposed similar manner of making personal comments about other editors, of which there is exactly 1 example provided, Jargo Nautilus alleged a "personal vendetta" with no link to any policy or guideline, while I questioned the competence of the editor for not accepting that "does not give up" cannot mean "does not capitulate" despite "give up" and "capitulate" being synonyms; with a link to the page which states, literally, "competence is required", after several other editors had already done so to another editor, implicitly showing me that it was alright and acceptable and not recognized as a personal attack to do so.

But what about our personal characteristics? Per my own user page, I speak Canadian English natively (implying I am Canadian), and speak an intermediate level of French; this is all the personal information I have on myself, since I believe it is the only personal information that is relevant (I have a habit of writing in Canadian English and can translate and check translations back to and forth from French at an intermediate level). Looking at my contributions, it's easily inferred I'm from Nova Scotia. Meanwhile, per Jargo Nautilus' user page, he's Australian, Taiwanese Chinese, Indonesian, and Burmese.

So it seems like the only similarities here are: editing two different talk pages on two different events involving NK over half a year apart, and once editng a different talk page on Israel (not Palestine) due toa Yapperbot request. With that level of evidence, the same allegation of sockpuppetry could probably be made against other editors on the opposite side of discussion from Grandmaster on the flight of NK Armenians page; the only thing that makes me more susceptible is the fact that I... happened to create my account a whole 4 days after the other editor was topic banned (and then I apparently lost interest in that topic for 7 months and didn't even participate in the discussion I was apparently banned from. Some sockpuppet I would be.)

Well, I suppose I've probably just wasted a lot of my own time by devoting so much work to something I find rather insubstantial, but in a way it's mental exercise, and I want to keep the account that took me 8 months to get extended-confirmed so I could make corrections to any articles.

Based on all that, I don't think Grandmaster took more than a cursory glance at my contributions or user page before starting this SPI with almost no evidence and zero context. They didn't even provide any diffs whatsoever for anything except one diff for each account for so-called "personal statements". And I think that the one cited "similarity in personal attack" shows that the trigger for the SPI was me requesting competence from them because of them not accepting the synonymity of "give up" and "capitulate". If the standard for SPI is this low, then anyone could easily start an SPI for Brandmeister and Grandmaster, considering how often they're found together or in similar circles, always in agreement, with extremely similar usernames, both apparently being Azeri, both speaking English, Azeri, and Russian...and that's not an accusation, it's merely an illustration of how low Grandmaster's SPI standards are here.

Additionally, I do not appreciate the CheckUser request that allows investigations into my IP and tech specs, as I think there is definitely not enough behavioural evidence offered for that.

Also, the formalities of the submission seem to read as if the user is accusing Jargo Nautilus of being a sockpuppet of JM2023? Which is impossible as by Grandmaster's own admission JM2023 was created way after Jargo Nautilus. JM2023 (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jargo Nautilus

TL:DR: Jargo Nautilus quit editing Wikipedia (90%) back in February 2023. Now just edits a few articles infrequently. Jargo Nautilus has absolutely zero affiliation with user "Grandmaster" and hasn't been involved in any articles relating to Armenia since February 2023.

This is honestly one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my life. No, I do not operate any sockpuppet accounts. I've basically quit editing Wikipedia for several months at this point, although I still read Wikipedia quite often. I have been quite busy in real life studying, working, socialising, etc. Go ahead and lay charges; you have no ground to stand on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this entire SPI case constitutes a form of harassment against myself and nullifies the alleged "personal attacks" which Grandmaster has accused me of from many months ago. I am officially accusing Grandmaster of harassment and intimidation. Not to mention the fact that I've literally been inactive for months, and this case constitutes one of the biggest necroes that I have ever seen. Let it die already! Let it die! It's a waste of my time and energy, and I request the administrators to close the case promptly so that I can get on with my life. Thank you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support levelling sanctions/ charges against Grandmaster for this egregious assault against my wellbeing. This behaviour from Grandmaster is absolutely unacceptable. Without any provocation from myself, he has viciously attacked me. This is causing problems for my mental health. I have already quit Wikipedia for several months due to how badly it has affected my mental health, and this is making the situation even worse. I believe that Grandmaster must face the utmost consequences for his crimes. In my opinion, Grandmaster should be permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. This is already far beyond any red lines that I had. I literally can't even live my life in peace without being attacked by this person. I've been not editing almost any areas of Wikipedia for several months; the last article that I edited was Asterids, i.e. daisies and sunflowers. He cannot get away with this horrendous behaviour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even worth arguing against this SPI itself, since there is clearly zero evidence. Not to mention that it's just completely fabricated and a big lie; I can tell you that. When is an admin going to come over here so that we can open an arbitration case against Grandmaster? I don't want to spend days on this nonsense. If we can get it over with in less than 24 hours, then that would be optimal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster - "Jargo Nautilus was indefinitely topic banned from modern armed conflicts in Eastern Europe including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on 26 January 2023, and blocked for the ban violation on January 28, 2023 by Callanecc." - Thanks for reminding, me, "buddy". You do realise that I'm basically traumatised by this? This is a direct attack against my mental health and wellbeing. I would like to file a report immediately. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I had some doubts, they were erased when both accounts used the exact same atypical formatting in their comments here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What does this mean? Are you saying you have no doubts that me and Jargo Nautilus are the same person based on... "the exact same atypical formatting"? Any specific examples of why it's atypical and what's exactly the same about them?

  From what I see, I have a single comment consisting of a long dispassionate manifold defence, while this other user has multiple comments with no relevant defence telling us about their "traumatic experiences". Even if the comments use the "exact same atypical formatting" (whatever that means, and I don't see how either exactness or atypicality can be seen here), it's ignoring behaviour counter-evidence I presented (and the behavioural counter-evidence Jargo Nautilus seems to have incidentally presented through his behaviour in his own comments).

  I also recommend reading (or re-reading) my own defensive comment, as well as looking at both user pages, before coming to the conclusion you seem to have reached.

  I wouldn't be so concerned except for the fact that multiple people have recently called out Jargo Nautilus for his recent comments all over the place about this matter and about Grandmaster, his topic ban, and his various views and overall Wikilosophy which evidently and often strongly oppose my own (as shown in my own defensive comment), which I do not want associated with me now or in the future. It would reflect negatively on me. I am here to improve the encyclopedia, not to drag around someone else's baggage and beliefs. JM2023 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a technical check? Does this mean that a check was done on my IP? Does this mean enough behavioural evidence was present to conclude a technical check was necessary? If so, what about the behavioural evidence was convicing? I am not experienced with SPI and this is the first I've seen of it, so the information would be helpful for me to understand the process that led to this taking place regarding me. JM2023 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved this to reflect Jargo Nautilus, since they are the older account. However, the two accounts are entirely  Unrelated, technically. Closing without action. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a check on this as well. Girth Summit's findings match my own, and there's no evidence of proxy use here. Specifically, my technical finding is entirely  Unrelated. --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]