Clearly Paektu's behaviour on wiki, his constant POVing of articles to a horrifying degree and his refusal to show even the slightest acceptance of balance needs to be faced up to. I think a ban in this case is in order. FearÉIREANN 05:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
While Jtdirl has reacted properly and prudently, some users have called him "insane" and have attacked his political views as "twisted." We must make it clear that the issue is not the ideology that he is espousing, but his obnoxiousness.
There is a chance that he could be reformed as well and become a valued contributor. Perhaps he could channel his interests in a constructive manner. Frankly, the prospects of an anti-revisionist Stalinist contributing non-polemical, proper encyclopedic content is exciting. A fresh, different perspective might be an impetus for the research of subject matter that is ordinarily overlooked, topics on subjects of which other users might not be aware or topics that others consider arcane.
I opt that he only be banned if he continues his abominable behavior after this stern warning, but not immediately. For this to happen, however, we must refrain from making issue of his views. 172
It should be noted that he has posted (highly POV) copyrighted material onto the Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin pages (reverted several times by mav for each). --Jiang
I have no problem with his POV, though he does need to find a way to make it encyclopedic and not blatantly biased when actually writing articles. What I take issue with is his reposting the past lengthy essay copied mostly from an external site (some manifesto put out by a consortium of various Communist parties). Posting this same text to dozens of pages is just vandalism, not constructive discussion. Doing things like adding a picture of GW Bush to moron doesn't help either. --Delirium 06:05 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I agree. I am not disputing his views. But irrespective of whether one is right wing or left wing there is a requirement to show a fair degree of NPOV. A person's opinions and viewpoint is irrelevant. NPOV is an adequate requirement. I certainly agree with 172 that "the prospects of an anti-revisionist Stalinist contributing non-polemical, proper encyclopedic content is exciting"! :-) FearÉIREANN 06:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm not defending him. And I'm not criticizing other troll-fighters who've encountered him, such as Jiang, Mav, and Jtdirl; only two made issue of his "twisted" views or 'insanity'. I called his behavior abominable and obnoxious. I'm just saying that he might be scared straight. After all, even if he wanted to use Wiki to advance Maoism and Stalinism (however, he's a bit perplexing since no Maoist, Stalinist, or Enverist "anti-revisionist" fringe group admires Saddam Hussein), he could do it best by becoming a valued contributor who researches areas of study overlooked by conventional academics. However, if he continues with blatant vandalism, he should be banned immediately. 172
I said asked him to stop posting "twisted POV" & copyrighted material to the pedia. I supposed I could have done without the twisted part, but IMO, anyone who worships a killer has a twiseted POV. I'm an american, but you don't see me worshiping Bush.
anyhow, I think this guy is a reincarnation of another vandal, simply b/c based on his comments and actions, he seems to know his way around the pedia very well. I can't put my finger on who, but it just seems this way to me. MB 17:09 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, but you did call him "insane" on the vandalism in progress page, which was inappropriate. From expierence with previous vandals, we've learned that this only encourages them to act in an inappropriate manner out of vindictiveness. In addition, if he were offended, this might encourage him to be even more aggressive in advancing his views in an inappropriate manner. I myself found the inslut "twisted" offensive, and especially your defense of your own inappropriate behavior.
Ad hominem attacks against those with unpopular views don't have a place on Wikipedia, where users are supposed to be thinking critically, not casting emotional aspersions against personalities. For one, the ad hominem distracted the focus on vandalism and made issue of his views, with which we are not concerned. And if you were interested in debating him, this site deserves a rational response backed up by complex arguments if your counter-points are going to be posted.
I continue this posting on Mbecker's page. 172