Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PCPP

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC).

PCPP (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

PCPP has for a long time openly and unapologetically pursued a pro-Chinese Communist Party, pro-PRC stance in editing Wikipedia. Often this means deleting vast amounts of content, failing to engage in meaningful discussion, restoring information that has no sources, ignoring consensus or ongoing discussion on talk pages, accusing others of bad faith, etc. He has been sporadically active on Falun Gong articles, and has received a final warning for his problematic editing there (I am leaving a note on AGK (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him of this RfC). The scope of this RfC is not just his editing on Falun Gong articles though, but all editing related to the CCP.

My assessment is that this individual has shown that he is unwilling to edit articles related to Falun Gong or the Chinese Communist Party in a neutral way, or with any regard to wiki convention.

Update: Just a brief note that on all the pages that I reverted PCPP, I left a note on the talk page asking for an explanation from him. This isn't a political case. I just don't think any editor should be able to get away with randomly blanking content like that. I don't want him punished, I just want him to stop willfully deleting material. Instead, try to actively balance the POV he sees, or suggest ways of fixing any problems. Everyone knows that this behaviour would simply not be tolerated from someone like myself, so I just don't know why it is from PCPP. I don't think this whole RfC had to descend into a giant food fight about Falun Gong again. We're better than this, guys. --Asdfg12345 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After this RfC was filed, PCPP deleted some more stuff. I left a friendly note on the talk page. PCPP's deletions really have been my fault the whole time, as Ohconfucius so ably points out. Well, I've got some "re-education through forced non-editing" time ahead, so I'll be able to reflect on my incorrect attitude then. --Asdfg12345 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I tire of this. PCPP's latest remarks are a distortion of what I said and what happened on those pages. I'm not going to bother going into it. Anyone who cares can check the history and the talk page. --Asdfg12345 03:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PCPP's response to Jayen: Firstly, the two individuals who prepared the report are noted scholars, and the report was published by Freedom House. I also checked the RS noticeboard and it was clear that it was a reliable source. You were also aware of the RS noticeboard post, so you knew it had been vetted as a reliable source. Meanwhile, I notice someone else disputed your use of a Sina blog in Chinese. You're not applying nearly the same standards to others as you do to your own contributions. I will restore some of the removed information soon. I need to take a closer look. Certainly, some if it may have been extraneous, but such large scale removals under the guise of policy isn't cool. --Asdfg12345 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCPP, I can only agree that my removing a source because I didn't like it was wrong. I should have discussed things in more depth and all that. My contrition should be apparent. --Asdfg12345 05:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence: This is looking worse and worse. You would think that after an RfC opens, the individual would at least temporarily stop the agenda-driven behaviour. He has continued, editing against consensus on a number of articles, changing words in an insidious way, including material that had already been discussed and rejected, etc. He's just wasting a lot of people's time. Edits:

[1] -- makes it seem like the persecution is only a Falun Gong allegation, removes context without discussion;
[2] -- restores original research that had already been rejected on talk
[3] -- ignores discussion and removes material he doesn't like with a specious explanation (actually, that's the whole MO)
[4] -- ignores discussion and removes material he doesn't like with a specious explanation
[5] -- restores material that had been discussed and decided needless and tantamount to original research on talk, by outside editors
[6] -- same.
[7] -- deletes material with a highly deceptive edit summary.
[8] -- "rephrases" (see deletes) material he doesn't like, including which describes Mao Zedong as a "master propagandist" etc.

It's amazing that this user, who is obviously and methodically pushing an agenda, has been allowed to do this for so long. As Arilang said, it's clearly just a job. No shame in it. But we need to get rid of him, because it's damaging to the morale of those who actually want to build the encyclopedia. --Asdfg12345 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

My hope is that this editor will stop deleting large chunks of reliably sourced, neutrally presented, and relevant information from articles, that he will engage in discussion, that he will start doing research to back up his POV, that he will not always cast disagreement in personal terms, and that he will stop pursuing a clear political agenda in his edits. I hope this user stops, or is prevented from continuing with the above mentioned activities which create a polarised editing atmosphere. Topic ban from all Falun Gong and CCP-related articles.

Description

PCPP behaves outside Wikipedia norms in editing pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese Communist Party. He should modify his behaviour, begin engaging in research and discussion, and not resort to measures such as large-scale blanking, ignoring discussion and consensus, etc.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Recent deletions that sparked this RfC: [9][10][11][12][13]

A sampling of other disruptive edits: [14][15][16][17][18](removing material supported by a NPOV noticeboard post)[19][20][21](again)[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] -- while some of those could be construed as legitimate content disputes, PCPP rarely discusses his edits. Often he accuses other parties of pursuing an agenda.

Just after this RfC was filed the user again removed material from the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and Nova Religio, and reinserted material that has been shown not to correspond to the cited source, while claiming "questionable sources removed."

Here are some earlier interesting edits: [31] -- "restored NPOV intro" tells us that Mao was victorious against the KMT, and that His supporters regard Mao as a great revolutionary leader whose thought was the highest expression of Marxism. Supporters within China consider Mao as a successful military and political leader who led the rise of 20th Century China. He instigated several major socio-political programmes (some through collectivisation), including the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, seeking to achieve, by means of his political philosophy, the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China, and to spread Maoism across the world.^{[citation needed]}"

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Previous warnings or remarks:[32][33][34][35][36]

Previous blocks:[37]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

The recent spate of blanking of content across five articles is evidence that the issue has not been resolved.

Since this was opened PCPP has continued the pattern of "delete first, ask later," including adding large chunks of unsourced material, deleting sourced information, etc. My point is not that improvement was not needed, but with the total disregard for the work other editors have put in, and the idea that it's acceptable to simply delete anything just because he doesn't like it. It fits precisely with the description Ohconfucius provides on his rant page. But he condones PCPP's conduct. diffs:[38][39] --Asdfg12345 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs). I have witnessed a systematic removal of material critical of the CCP, material pertinent to human rights violations by the CCP, etc. by this user .Here, in this recent edit, for instance, the user blanks 12 paragraphs of very well sourced content, including entire sections with a sneaky comment "rv pov material." The user refuses to discuss such blanking, and any attempt to discuss the issue with him is met with personal attacks, and personal accusations against those raising the issue . Another recent instance of blanking, with no edit summary or talk comments to justify the edit, can be seen here. And here, in the edit dated March 1st, several paragraphs are blanked by the user with a similar comment: "pov cleanup." The concerns I raise here, including the blanking of 12 paragraphs of well sourced and centrally relevant content, will never be directly addressed by the user, and, will only be returned with demonstrably baseless personal attacks.

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Edits 1-5 were done in removal of edits that conflicts with WP:NPOV. Edit 4, in particular, were done in response to one particular POV pusher [40] who has been cautioned by the community several times over his heavy handed editing habits.

Edit 6 was in restoration of Asdfg's removals of sourced criticism from Sima Nan

Edit 7 was misattributed, as the original edit claimed that the person in question was an UN representative

Edit 8 and 15 was a revert of POV wording, in which the FLG ban was termed "persecution", and the Chinese government's claims was dismissed as "government propganda"

Edit 9 restored the unexplained removal of unreferenced tags, and a paragraph that has nothing to do with government propaganda.

Edit 10 removed original research added by Asdfg, in which links to a Google search(!)

Edit 11 involves shortening the review section and removing excessive quotations, which was acceptable according to WP guidelines

Edit 12 and 13 is a disputed source of criticism, a semi-fictional account of the former Chinese premier Jiang that contain no facutal basis

Edit 14 was in response of Dilip's large amount of unsolicited additions

Edit 16 was in response to Dilip's deletions, including the removal of criticism of Li Hongzhi, and a several unsourced statements relating to Jian Zemin

Edit 17 was in response to Asdfg's previous changes, which completely changed the article's focus into relating to "studies" of FLG practitioners, and his removal of the individual countries response

Edit 18 is blalant promotional material relating to the FLG mouthpiece Epoch Times, and that somehow it is a valid source of criticism despite its lack of review

Edit 19 is in response to the removal of FLG critics such as Singer, and pushing the claims of the PRC organ harvesting FLG practitioners, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the article in question

Edit 20-22 are related to a now merged article, which was a giant quotefarm. I attempted to summarize the various sections to resistance.

As demonstrated by several other editors the FLG SPAs often have defacto control of the article that claims ownership, as as such, any pro-FLG, POV material can be inserted without question, yet attempts to address these issues are often met with resistance, with violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, WP:LAWYER, and WP:ADVOCACY. Especially considering that until June 2009, the FLG articles were routinely editied by four FLG SPAs, until the fact that I presented the issue to Mediation cabal [41].

These edits are issues of a larger content dispute, and Asdfg himself continued to present him in a hostile manner, leaving three messages on my talkbox over the past week ([42]), despite the fact that these articles were only edited once in the past week. it's ludicrous for Asdfg to call me a supporter of the Chinese Communist Party, despite the fact that I have edited a variety of Wikipedia articles, and is not here merely to pursue a political agenda. Asdfg himself is a single-purpose account and self admitted FLG practitioner who stated that his mission to edit wikipedia is to "save people from the CCP before it's destroyed [43][44][45][46][47], who calls whose editing history consists of nothing but inserting whitewash into the FLG articles, was banned from editing the FLG articles for six months for POV pushing in accordance with his political views [48].

I removed Asdfg's latest edits because he has a habit of introducing large, unsolicited changes that seriously threaten the POV balances of the articles in question with little discussion with the current editors. His edits are largly sourced from singular sources, which he used to overwhelm any opposing views and justify further POV pushing. His edits has a large POV problem, such as trying to guise views and opinions as facts [49][50][51]. Ironically, he has no problem removing verified sources from the PRC government or supporting their views, and blanketly dismiss them as propaganda. [52][53][54].

In regards to the previous blocks and warnings, as shown by my edit history, I had largely refrained from editing the controversial articles since the POV content were brought to the community's attention. Asdfg himself has also received a final warning over POV pushing [55] by the same admin, and since then has continued his editing habits. Asdfg has not ceased his POV pushing despite being banned from the FLG articles, and I feel that he is targeting me in retalitation, dragging out old dirt despite the fact that I have largely ceased in these behavior. In the past 4 days I have only made one individual edit to the articles mentions, and as such I find this case is without merit, especially considering that Asdfg himself made a large amount of unsolicited changes to the articles, and made no attempt to discuss the issues on the respective articles other than hostile notices on my talkpage--PCPP (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find Dilip_rajeev's claims against me very amusing and one of utter hypocrisy. This user is not even very active on Wikipedia, as his editing patterns consists of hit-and-run changes, and has a habit of disappearing for long periods, then resurface. He already has broken two article probations on Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba, and was blocked 8 times on his main account and his sockpuppet.[56][57]. The communit's views on his behavior can be seen at his arbitration request.

This user made little attempts to discuss with me, and demonstrated outright hostility. He accused me of being a "vandalism only account" and "propagandist" [58] over the particular content disputes, and on August 16 2008, this user made no less than 5 attempts to place and restore a vandalism tag on my talk page [59]. Furthermore, he attempted to get Ohconfucius banned via a false usercheck [60], took Antilived to the ANI and accused him of being a Chinese propagandist over one source critical source [61], and attempted to OUT editor Bobby Fletcher [62]. Basically to him, anyone who is critical of his changed are propagandists employed by the Chinese Communist Party, and as such I find little reason to assume good faith on this particular user.--PCPP (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in contray to Asdfg's claims, I have indeed engaged in discussions in the Mass line article, in which he removed material directly quoted from Chairman Mao's statements and replaced them from a singular Western source. He claimed that they were removed because they were "Maoist propaganda" [63]. As for 6-10 Office, he engaged in the same conduct, dismissing quotes from PRC officials as "trained propagandists" [64] and violating an article probation on editing FLG related articles [65]. --PCPP (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jayen, I removed of the PRC media article because it was out of place and irrelevant to the article. The edits on PRC Propaganda was justified per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, as the source is not from a academic institution, and have no results or cites on google scholar.--PCPP (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to asdfg, the author's status are irrelevant when the paper has neither been peer-reviewed nor referenced by fellow scholars, and only one person responded to the RS request. Furthermore it is not hosted by a respectable academic institution, but a website with a clear political agenda. Their claims lack attribution and has been given undue weight that covered most of the page, whereas the Sina blog was a short paragraph sourced from a Chinese journalist and professor. There's more complaints about bias present in the article since you and Dilip started editing that page, the same type of POV pushing that resulted in you ban from the FLG articles. And you want to see further irony? [66] You removing Prof Kavan's critical views on FLG despite the source being an actual academic study.--PCPP (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In contray to Ariliang's claims, he added several poorly sourced references into the PRC propaganda article and insisted in synthesising claims that the 2008 Olympic Opening Ceremonies are "propaganda", out of articles that specifically talked about nationalism [67]. I have in fact collaborated and expanded articles on Liu Wencai and Red Crag which he added. He showed little assumption of good faith and engaged me in a hostile manner, accusing me of being a member of the "50 Cent Party", and says "My advice to user PCPP, it is OK to work for the Communist Party, and it is OK to wipe clean your boss's bottom, but please do it in a more discreet, more subtle way. You are yet to learn the art of "channeling public opinion". You fail."--PCPP (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ImperfectlyInformed: WP:RS clearly stated that such source should be used with caution, especially considering the fact that a) it's an isolated study b) has no peer reviews and citations. And if the authors are so much a reliable source, then why is their claims published by a political organization instead of an academic institute? --PCPP (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Asdfg:

1) Asdfg seems to have no problem for these wording to be added by a fellow Falun Gong SPA Olaf Stephanos in the first place, who only recently came off a 6-month ban[68] [69]. He responded with a hostile remark to my replies [70]

2) The only two people rejecting the claims again are Asdfg and Olaf themselves, when there's no consensus on removing the material on the talk page [71].

3) and 4) Addition of poorly sourced material that violates WP:BLP

5) and 6) Sourced material that has been reported by the media, as FGL's views homosexuality ineed received notable coverage. Asdfg attempts to dismiss such criticism as Chinese propaganda[72]

7) and 8) I changed the source from an unreviewed essay from a political website to an opinion article on the WSJ by the same authors, and attributed their opinions on Chinese propaganda.

And I think that Asdfg is clearly having a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as by his own admissions he is a Falun Gong practitioner who's mission on wikipedia is to "save people from the CCP before it's destroyed" [73]. His attitude has become downright hostile, in a recent edit he suggested that I am a paid member of the Chinese government's "50 Cent Party" [74] [75]. He also outlined his intention to continue engaging in edit warring [76].--PCPP (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]