Talk:Mykolas Majauskas

Persistent attempts at information control by likely related party

This article seems to have been under recurring attempts at information control since Jan 2021. Reverted.37.220.204.230 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

New edits by likely related parties

Majauskas was on a work trip to India on August 8-14; on August 11 and 17 profile-less users Fjjsdhs and WikiIndia69, respectively, remove referenced but true information from this article. Probably just a coincidence… Elmenhorster (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

IP 78.62.134.40

Only interested in edit-warring on the subject of this article and has just re-emerged after 1.5 years of silence (first and last edit 31 Jan 2021, nothing else until 1 Oct 2022). likely a related party as per context. Elmenhorster (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

IP 193.219.60.1

This IP belongs to Lithuania's parliament, the Seimas, where Majauskas is currently an MP. Almost without a doubt editing by a related party or, imaginably, Majauskas himself. 61.80.158.90 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

IP 86.38.173.69

This IP has been traced to https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinco_Kudirkos_aik%C5%A1t%C4%97, a square facing the compound of the Government of Lithuania; likely related party. Elmenhorster (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

IP 78.56.234.138

Restored 3 removals of referenced, fact-checked information on Jan 12. SofijaEl (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

IP 89.245.191.88

Within 3 minutes an IP who never edited another topic on Wikipedia rewrites the entire article with a positive spin, removing negatives; within 18 minutes, someone reorders it. I assume good faith, even in the context of this article's overall edit history. Reverted. The positive spin unfortunately is low-importance. It may be worth briefly mentioning his positive contributions like suicide prevention activities, while perhaps also questioning their genuineness (what was the actual impact?), since he was not a suicide-prevention activist elected to the parliament but a politician using a social topic to raise his electoral profile.Frankcrook (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook you removed entire sections. Regarding the "positive spin" — I have read the sources, and the current version actually adheres more closely to the BLP policy. There are accusations without specific individuals being named, and opposition parties are spreading the information. BLP policy emphasizes that we should be extremely cautious about what is included on BLP pages. As for the mention of suicide, it's typical for politicians to address social issues, including topics like sexual harassment (e.g., #MeToo) and suicide, as part of their agenda. That's why I reverted your edits and am happy to communicate further here. 美しい歌 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook please do not vandalize the page with your POV edits. If you disagree with something, kindly discuss it here. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging here; I've just left a comment on your Wikipedia profile.

For what it's worth, the sources are not deprecated by Wikipedia and they say what they say. Wikipedia's BLP policy is not one of disagreeing with mainstream media sources. Regarding accusations of sexual abuse Majauskas has had 6 years to prove his innocence in a court of law.Frankcrook (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook it's not about agreeing or disagreeing. What exactly do you find missing on the page? Was something related to sexual accusations removed? 美しい歌 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No need to make this personal. I am still to see evidence that my edits have been inproperly referenced.Frankcrook (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook so feel free to add what you feel is missing. don't remove the other sections please 美しい歌 (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook most sources are based on a TV interview and say the same — the person was accused, the subject denies it, and the court/prosecutor remain silent. The current version is much better, without POV or original research. Maybe it could be rearranged and more details added, but you don't seem to want to make any progress. You can easily add what you think is missing, but you keep removing properly sourced content from the page, which is not acceptable. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to what you are saying, none of the sources are based on TV interviews (not a single reference links to a TV website or a video.Frankcrook (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Majauskas' sexual abuse scandal prosecutors were not able to get involved because Majauskas survived 3 parliamentary impeachments which were necessary for his parliamentary immunity to be waived. Unfortunately you are wrong again.Frankcrook (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide all examples of what you consider POV or original research that is not referenced by mainstream media.Frankcrook (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook Most of the sources refer to the TV interview, which is fine, but we should be cautious with it. Regarding the other person who confirmed the allegations, that came from another interview [1] here.

It is not Wikipedia's job to question sources of mainstream (non-deprecated) media sources.Frankcrook (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

About original research - this part is nice (Following the scandal Majauskas did not resign from his parliamentary seat, continued his political career and remains [citation needed] a catalyst for the Lithuanian chapter of WEF Global Shapers), especially with terms like 'catalyst' and no citations. 美しい歌 (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) - that was not found in the source. Removed 美しい歌 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook I used the version you like and edit it exlaining every tiny edit, but you again reverted it. I will wait fot the admin to take the action. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You used the version you "like" (the white-washed one) and used notes for your tiny "edits" to say things which are not true:

Source 1. "Iki šiol M.Majauskas kūrė pavyzdingo šeimos vyro ir kovotojo prieš bet kokį smurtą įvaizdį." > Goole Translate: "Until now, M. Majauskas created the image of an exemplary family man and a fighter against any violence."

You say: "no in a source - cultivating public image"Frankcrook (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook do we talk about the image? then le't make a separate section on image and add that. That is a journalist method to make an emotinal connection. Not allowed for Wikipedia. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not correct. Wikipedia does not question non-deprecated, mainstream media sources.Frankcrook (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Source 2. You say: "source mentions safety as the main reason, no retaliation" I say: could you please explain the nuanced difference between safety and safety from retaliation?

You making well-intentioned edits which are wrong (and misunderstand Wikipedia's policies) do not make them right.Frankcrook (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

safety is a more broad term and the source says about it. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh it does? Please quote directly from the source, then.Frankcrook (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook in his apartment after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) - there is not such facts. and you keep adding this. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there are (such facts). Reference No. 8: "Pasak merginos, būsimasis Seimo narys su jaunuoliais gausiai vartodavo alkoholį ir ypatingą dėmesį skirdavo jam patikusioms merginoms." Google Translate: "According to the girl, the future member of the Seimas used to drink a lot with young people and paid special attention to the girls he liked."Frankcrook (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"According to the girl, the future member of the Seimas used to drink a lot with young people and paid special attention to the girls he liked - yes and how it supports the line you aded: in his apartment after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) ?

that phrase about drinking does not allow to make such claim as: .....in his apartment after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape). Classical original research. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also Reference No. 14 (almost exactly same language).Frankcrook (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

you cannot make up facts as you like. for instance, the woman said they went to his apartment from the cafe, not a bar. Maybe you are that woman? Then, everything will be much more understandable. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No need for personal accusations. Do you find victims of sexual abuse worth of mockery like this?Frankcrook (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frankcrook I returned the removed material back, while kept the disputed sexual allegations section untouched. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted. Just minutes ago you said you were going to stop edit-warring and wait for administrator. What changed your mind?Frankcrook (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your level of fluency in Lithuanian (the language of virtually all the sources)? If I may ask.Frankcrook (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you saying that it is only the sexual abuse part that is disputed (which is what you are disputing here)?Frankcrook (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've read the source [2] and may only say, that you make up facts and show the sources, which use the same phrases (100% copied from each other) and again - no proof of such a bald statement: "plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape)". You seem to use Wikipedia only with a single purpose that is not allowed. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I must insist, impolitely: what is your level of fluency in the source language?Frankcrook (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Admin help}}

I have voided the admin help. This seems to be a good faith content dispute. I suggest the parties read WP:Dispute Resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

美しい歌 insists on reverting (~10 times) to a disputed, white-washed version that is a complete rewrite of this article (and took only 3 edits in 3 minutes yesterday by an IP user who never edited Wikipedia before).Frankcrook (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The current version is full with violations of BLP and made up facts. I've compiled a list of violations and shared some with Frankcrook, but they keep insisting they are right and that the fabricated sentences and phrases are acceptable to add to the page. The BLP ticket has been requested by me today. 美しい歌 (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What has been fabricated? AusLondonder (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring

@AusLondonder:, @1AmNobody24: I appreciate your inputs vs edit-warring at Gintarė Skaistė on 10 Oct. I hope you can take an impartial look at the situation we have here.Frankcrook (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What seems to be the specific dispute? I see significant edit-warring is occuring. AusLondonder (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

1. My one-paragraph addition yesterday on Majauskas' new role as president of a cryptocurrency lobby CEO seems to have triggered subsequent edits yet noone has mentioned the topic or questioned the sources on Talk or when reverting article versions.

2. Yesterday's comprehensive rewrite following my edit removed all negative information and added non-important positive information. Editors (89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv) have not come back to discuss any of this.

3. I am disputing their rewrite and reverting it to long-established version + the paragraph I added.

4. The editor today insists on questioning truth of the years-old part of this article on nuance of source language. Sources are mainstream (have their own Wikipedia pages) and are not in doubt (not deprecated on Wikipedia).

5. The editor seems to be deflecting away from discussing Majauskas role at CEO (cryptocurrency lobby) which is at the core of the version they keep removing.

6. They are misinterpreting Wikipedia's policy (questioning sources of mainstream sources) and insist that I have consented to their reverts, which I have not. Nothing of substance has even been discussed, no sources have been established as false or misinterpreted. They have also not reacted to 3 warnings (first time ever I used those).Frankcrook (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mykolas Majauskas. The section on the allegations should remain as they were significant and are reliably-sourced but the section needs cleanup and clarification. AusLondonder (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@Daniel Case: There is ongoing disruptive editing on this article after your edit-protection expired. Please consider temporarily protecting it again.Frankcrook (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like other admins have taken care of that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)