User talk:Paektu/ban
|
|
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)
- (Sounds like fun, though:) / Sigg3.net 15:37, 4 Dec 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
Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
- Look at this guy's user page! He's obsessed! He's a repeat vandal, let's ban him. MB 04:16 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- He now sounds more like a troll than a real Marxist, from the discussion at Talk:Joseph Stalin: The bourgeoisie always likes putting up phony facades, like "democracy," "freedom," and "human rights" when all they really mean is the freedom of capital to ground labor to the dust and their desires to infringe on the sovereignty of people's democracies like Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba. Not that nobody could hold that view, but it sounds a little too obviously over-the-top. --Delirium 04:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I know I'm being annoyed having to see his playpen. Dmsar 04:23 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- To some of the users above: Please refrain from disparaging this user for his political views and ad hominem attacks calling him "insane" for being a Marxist. The issue is vandalism. It's his prerogative to espouse his views on his talk page; and if you want to challenge his views, why don't you ask for his contact information and debate Stalinism on another forum? To an astute observer, ad hominem attacks seem geared to someone not thinking critically, someone appealing to an emotional reaction to the personality rather than a rational response to abstract and complex arguments. You're only going to encourage repeated vandalism by allowing this user to believe that he is being persecuted for his unpopular political views. So please be impersonal, apolitical, and direct in combating vandalism. Posting irrelevant, copyrighted content, after all, is the issue, not Stalinism. 172
- Your making the assumption that this guy is rational, which based on his actions, he probably isn't. You have no way of saying he will or will not continue to vandalize, either way. If he is as obsessed as he comes off as, he will feel he is being personally attacked no matter how you go about it. MB 18:35 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- To borrow a word from Paektu-speak, you are being "revisionist." You called him "twisted" for being a Stalinist and that can be proven on several pages. You did not make the assumption that he was "irrational" earlier; you were enagaing in ad hominem attacks. Don't try to recast your attacks in light of criticism. 172
- I called him twisted for calling Sadam Hussein his hero. I later retracted that statement (along with correcting my "insane" statement with "obsessed"). How do you know I did not think him irrational earlier? And since when have I recast my attacks in light of criticism? I admited that I used improper language, and I have fixed the problem. But this is all irrelivent to my comment above. We have no way of knowing how this guy will act to being banned, no matter how he was (mis-)treated. I still don't really believe this guy is a true Stalinist (or Marxist, or whatever you want to call him). I believe he is just someone trying to stir things up. His userpage is just one way of doing this. MB 19:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- This was your so called apology: "I supposed I could have done without the twisted part, but IMO, anyone who worships a killer has a twiseted POV."
Please note: User:Mount Paektu, which was created after he kept replacing the warnings on User talk:Paektu and I protected it. --Jiang 02:52 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have redirected User:Mount Paektu to User:Paektu so that anyone looking to contact him goes to his original page and then talk page with the debate that he seems determined to hide. The redirect is protected given the efforts he has undertaken to stop people finding the debate. FearÉIREANN 05:32 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am currently against banning, by the way. כסיף Cyp 17:38 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- We must make it clear that the issue is not the ideology that he is espousing, but his obnoxiousness. (said 172)
Bravo! :) Wikipedians can have any point of view they like, as long as they operate according to our policies on, for example, a neutral point of view and basic standards of politeness. Martin 23:38 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
To borrow a word from Paektu-speak, you are being "revisionist." You called him "twisted" for being a Stalinist and that can be proven on several pages. You did not make the assumption that he was "irrational" earlier; you were enagaing in ad hominem attacks. Don't try to recast your attacks in light of criticism (172 said.)
I totally agree with you 172.
He now sounds more like a troll than a real Marxist, from the discussion at Talk:Joseph Stalin: The bourgeoisie always likes putting up phony facades, like "democracy," "freedom," and "human rights" when all they really mean is the freedom of capital to ground labor to the dust and their desires to infringe on the sovereignty of people's democracies like Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba. Not that nobody could hold that view, but it sounds a little too obviously over-the-top. (said Delirium)
Ok so now you are judging who is a 'real' Marxist ? And that you can say holding the belief that Cuba, Iraq and North Korea are peoples democracies is over-the-top ? Anyone who does not conform to your ideal of a real marxist is a troll ? I can see little difference between your extreme points of view, I sure do hope you author fair and non-biased wiki articles. Hauser 22:01 24 Jul 2003 (NZSTC)
I consider these to be vandalism: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=1193343, http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=1191977 --Jiang
- Hey, it's an improvement. This form of vandalism is funny and in good taste! 172
- Think I prefer Paektu's version... (Although I understand why it was reverted...) כסיף Cyp 10:41 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I agree, both are funny and hardly vandalism. People can have a quick, not-too-serious laugh about the pictures. Hauser 24:21 27 Jul 2003 (NZSTC)
This guy seems like the left-wing version of JoeM. Vancouverguy 21:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Paektu Where are you? Wheres your pictures of KimIlSung? Defend yourself.