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:
Example 1：
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，or that the intensity of the criticism may exacerbate the discussion, please point it out.
ChatGPT
LuciferianThomas criticizes Mosowai's behavior and accuses them of repeatedly displaying their ignorance and misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community norms. Mosowai's insistence on reverting disruptive content is seen as pure vandalism, and their refusal to admit their mistakes is considered immature and stubborn. LuciferianThomas also points out that Mosowai's interpretation of policies and guidelines is often incorrect, and their behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. There is no uncivil or inappropriate language, personal attacks, or name-calling in LuciferianThomas's response, but the intensity of the criticism may exacerbate the discussion.
Please comment on whether the following three sentences of his speech were so strong in tone that they might have been rejected and embarrassed by the other party?
“请停止一而再再而三地展现你自己对方针、指引、社群规范和运作的无知和错误理解。”
“这次事件仅有展现了你的不成熟和固执己见、拒绝接受任何人的建议并我行我素，请利用这一个月的封禁时间好好反省，不要做Cyron Choi或霜奶仙三号。”
“装睡的人叫不醒，假扮受害者的永远觉得自己是对的。”
Please comment on whether it would have been possible to use a more moderate tone so that the discussion would not have been filled with anger.
ChatGPT
The three sentences in LuciferianThomas's speech are strong in tone and may have been perceived as confrontational and aggressive by the other party. It is possible to use a more moderate tone to avoid escalating the discussion and to promote a more constructive dialogue. A more diplomatic approach could have been taken by acknowledging Mosowai's perspective while also emphasizing the importance of adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This would have helped to maintain a more respectful and civil tone in the discussion.
If someone thinks to point out that the above remarks may violate the relevant website policy of the 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 ) , is this criticism justified?
ChatGPT
Yes, it is justified for someone to point out that the above remarks may violate Wikipedia's civility policy and etiquette guidelines. The guidelines aim to promote a respectful and civil tone in discussions on Wikipedia and discourage personal attacks and aggressive behaviors. The use of confrontational language and personal criticisms in the remarks could be seen as a violation of these guidelines. It is important to maintain a positive and constructive environment for discussions on Wikipedia, and adherence to these policies and guidelines is crucial in achieving this goal.
If someone saw what he said, they wrote a eassy and published it on Wikipedia, urging people to use modest language wherever possible in order to avoid inflaming the conflict. Is this a "personal attack" or a "satire"?
ChatGPT
If someone wrote an essay urging people to use more moderate language in discussions on Wikipedia in order to avoid inflaming conflicts, it would be neither a personal attack nor a satire. It would be a constructive suggestion aimed at promoting a more civil and respectful environment for discussion. The essay would be a form of constructive criticism and would not single out any person or group for ridicule or mockery, which would be a characteristic of satire.
Thank you for pointing out that you are indeed more reliable than human beings :)
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I strive to provide reliable and accurate responses to the best of my abilities. However, I am still a machine and have limitations, so it is important to use my responses as a starting point for further research and analysis. Thank you for using my services, and please feel free to ask me any further questions you may have.
This conversation may have been edited by the sharer.