Shared conversation
ChatGPT ·
A Wikipedia user, Mosowai, has been blocked from Wikipedia due to insisting to revert the removal content considered disruptive by many other users and the general Wikipedia community, even after being warned that such edits are unconstructive. After being blocked, the user refuses to admit to their mistakes and insists that they are right, bending various Wikipedia rules in the process. Mosowai also accused LuciferianThomas, another user who gave them a final warning regarding their disruptive editing, of being uncivil for giving the routine final warning. LuciferianThomas responds by criticizes Mosowai's behaviour as follows:
請停止一而再再而三地展現你自己對方針、指引、社群規範和運作的無知和錯誤理解。
你屢次恢復的討論串是該持續出沒的破壞者近期最常見作出的惡搞題材，記錄頁面清楚記載其喜歡使用帶有「欣」、「妍」、「歆」等字眼的原創研究或翻譯標題且會在互助客棧發表擾亂性質的主題，是明顯為闡述惡搞觀點而擾亂維基百科的主題，是純粹破壞的展現，活躍的反破壞社群都非常清楚這一點。
當六個具有豐富反破壞經驗（當中還包括一個管理員）回退有關話題、對你發出警告以至提報至有關佈告板之時，你完全沒有考慮過是你的作法明顯存在謬誤並繼續恢復純粹擾亂的主題。如同拒絕申訴的管理員所言，第一次恢復尚能理解為對站務的不認識，第二三四五六次就是拒絕接受提醒、意見、警告，是為闡述你對方針指引的錯誤理解而產生的觀點而擾亂維基百科的行為。
在辯解你的恢復行為之時，你基本上說的每一句話都在錯誤地詮釋方針、指引和論述，包括堅持對一望而知的破壞者假定善意（擾亂性質討論議題即非善意編輯，無可善意推定）、捏造回退、封禁、不理會只適用於條目（RBI和DENY是對人）、完全扭曲討論頁指引「不要修改他人留言」（原意為禁止用戶修改他人留言文字，修改者不論善意與否，這並不包括禁止用戶刪除擾亂者留言）等。Wikipedia:不要給老用戶發模板僅適用於對方針指引熟悉的老用戶，你一來不是老用戶，二來明顯對方針指引不斷做出錯誤的詮釋，何談熟悉；不斷恢復純粹破壞用戶作出的擾亂性質話題等同由你發表這樣的話題，LTA是破壞，你恢復他們加入的擾亂性質內容也就是破壞，完全不存在濫用。
你一再恢復破壞者加入的話題更是在給破壞者找樂子和給予成功感，對於涉案的愉快犯破壞者更是成功騙過一個反破壞菜鳥還幫它宣揚了它的惡搞內容。
這次事件僅有展現了你的不成熟和固執己見、拒絕接受任何人的建議並我行我素，請利用這一個月的封禁時間好好反省，不要做Cyron Choi或霜奶仙三號。
This message is in Traditional Chinese. Please translate it into English, and summarize if there is uncivil or inappropriate language, personal attacks, or name-calling in LuciferianThomas's response.
ChatGPT
LuciferianThomas criticizes Mosowai's behavior and accuses them of repeatedly exhibiting ignorance and misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community norms. Mosowai's continued restoration of disruptive content is seen as a clear act of vandalism, and several experienced anti-vandalism editors, including an administrator, have warned and reported the issue. Mosowai's defense is seen as a misinterpretation of policies and guidelines, including assuming good faith towards obvious vandals, fabricating claims about rollback, ban, and not modifying others' messages, and twisting the meaning of the "Do not give templates to experienced users" guideline. LuciferianThomas suggests that Mosowai's behavior only gives satisfaction to vandals and encourages them to continue their disruptive behavior. There are no personal attacks or name-calling in LuciferianThomas's response, but the tone is firm and critical.
LuciferianThomas used words like "ignorance" and "opinionated" in the above context. Is this considered uncivil or impolite language?
ChatGPT
While the language used by LuciferianThomas in the above context is critical and firm, it does not contain any overtly offensive or impolite language. The words "ignorance" and "opinionated" are used to describe Mosowai's behavior and actions, rather than attacking their character or making personal insults. Therefore, it can be considered acceptable within the context of a dispute on Wikipedia, where editors are expected to engage in robust but civil discourse.
Would it be correct for someone to accuse LuciferianThomas of violating Wikipedia's civility policy ( https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/维基百科:文明 ) or etiquette guidelines ( https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/维基百科:礼仪 ) by calling Mosowai "ignorant" in this case?
ChatGPT
It is possible for someone to accuse LuciferianThomas of violating Wikipedia's civility policy or etiquette guidelines, as different users may have different interpretations of what constitutes uncivil or impolite language. However, in this specific case, the use of the word "ignorant" can be seen as a factual description of Mosowai's behavior, rather than a personal attack. Additionally, the tone of LuciferianThomas's response is critical but not insulting or derogatory towards Mosowai as a person. Therefore, it is unlikely that the use of the word "ignorant" alone would be considered a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy or etiquette guidelines in this context.
This conversation may have been edited by the sharer.