Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PCPP

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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 '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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:


 * -- makes it seem like the persecution is only a Falun Gong allegation, removes context without discussion;
 * -- restores original research that had already been rejected on talk
 * -- ignores discussion and removes material he doesn't like with a specious explanation (actually, that's the whole MO)
 * -- ignores discussion and removes material he doesn't like with a specious explanation
 * -- restores material that had been discussed and decided needless and tantamount to original research on talk, by outside editors
 * -- same.
 * -- deletes material with a highly deceptive edit summary.
 * -- "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)

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:

A sampling of other disruptive edits: (removing material supported by a NPOV noticeboard post)(again) -- 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: -- "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."''

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:V
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:ADVOCACY

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Previous warnings or remarks:


 * Previous blocks:

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: --Asdfg12345 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * . 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.
 * . 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.

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 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.

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, 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, 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.

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. Ironically, he has no problem removing verified sources from the PRC government or supporting their views, and blanketly dismiss them as propaganda. .

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 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)

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.. 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" 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. Furthermore, he attempted to get Ohconfucius banned via a false usercheck, took Antilived to the ANI and accused him of being a Chinese propagandist over one source critical source , and attempted to OUT editor Bobby Fletcher. 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)


 * 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" . As for 6-10 Office, he engaged in the same conduct, dismissing quotes from PRC officials as "trained propagandists" and violating an article probation on editing FLG related articles . --PCPP (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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? 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)


 * 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 . 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)


 * 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)

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 . He responded with a hostile remark to my replies

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.

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

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". 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". He also outlined his intention to continue engaging in edit warring .--PCPP (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --PCPP (talk)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by Colipon
I am not going to even comment on this RfC because I'm sick and tired of dealing with Falun Gong. Disputes like this one are a highlight of the brutal failure of Wikipedia and its policies. Where PCPP is genuinely (but aggressively) reverting blatant POV-pushing albeit sourced content, he is met with gaming-the-system tactics, such as an overabundance of 'warnings', talk page civility from a group of users who are self-declared Falun Gong practitioners and who have a clear conflict of interest in editing these articles, or, as we see here, an RfC about user conduct. Because these users have not been banned permanently, I will not be editing any Falun Gong articles as long as disruptions continue and admins don't step up to do something about this obvious problem. User OhConfucius has already left the Falun Gong scene because he felt so discouraged by the endless drama, and I don't blame him, but I am a bit sad because he genuinely put forth efforts to make these challenging articles more balanced and neutral. Many other users have also left because of disruptions from Falun Gong SPAs. The result of an emboldened cabal of Falun Gong editors coming back for more disruption after several of them have already been banned. I have had it. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Colipon+ (Talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Edward130603 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Enric Naval (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Anderssl
I am commenting only on the basis of one edit, but it was very clearly disruptive and in line with what has been outlined above. PCPP came in and reverted a page move, claiming that the move had been "unwarranted and undiscussed" - while a discussion with three participants was in fact underway on the talk page. --Anderssl (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) anderssl

Outside view by Mrund
Every page relating to Falun Gong has long been camped upon by pro- and anti-Falun Gong propagandists using single-purpose accounts. Asdfg12345 who brings this RfC is a clear representative of the pro-FG lobby and is currently under a FG topic ban.

Over the past six months a group of concerned Wikipedians who are not single-purpose, not pro-FG and not pro-CCP have finally managed to do something about the sorry state of the articles. PCPP has taken vigorous part in this work. Though clearly not a friend of FG propaganda, he has not come across to me as a sympathiser with the Chinese Communist Party. The fact is that Falun Gong practicioners tend to believe that everyone who is not for them is against them, and thus a CCP agent or sympathiser. This explains Asdfg12345's reaction to PCPP's work.

Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Colipon+ (Talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Edward130603 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Ohconfucius

 * A fuller statement can be found here

This RfC is just symptomatic of the very polarised and hostile [Edited: poisoned] ambiance which exists within the Falun Gong articles which has contributed to my 'retiring' from same on long leave on more than one occasion. I suspect that asdfg may be motivated by his sense of justice in light of his own failed appeal; Dilip rajeev, co-sponsor of this censure, is the very worst embodiment of tendentious and disruptive editing and POV-pushing I have ever come across anywhere on Wikipedia - a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

This is not an attempt at resolution, for it is blatantly obvious that PCPP has long since been branded as "pro-Chinese Communist Party, pro-PRC", and Falun Gong editors never show a modicum of good faith irrespective of his concerns, nor do they seek to understand his concerns any more. This is grossly unfair. This is not the moral high ground they seek; au contraire. I have not found PCPP a difficult editor to work with. Yes, I agree that PCPP has an occasional tendency to be aggressive, and I see his frustrations when he is battling the Falun Gong single purpose accounts that watch over every 'claim', every 'persecution' and every comma. Whilst I do not endorse all the actions of PCPP, this RfC is clearly politically motivated. If we look at diffs 1 through 10, for example, these strike me that PCPP is always at least partly justified but is always reverted blindly. The diffs indicate existence of clumsy prose, overuse of quotation, unsourced assertions, insufficient attribution or downright weasely claims, and that he is trying to remedy them in his own way. Yes, PCPP seems to take an extreme position of outright removal instead of trying to fix deficiencies, yet nobody makes an effort to engage him properly. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Colipon+ (Talk) 03:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Edward130603 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) '''Ouyuecheng (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Dlabtot (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by TheSoundAndTheFury
Like Anderssl above, my remark is quite narrowly directed, based only on one experience. My remarks here are not an endorsement of the whole case that has been brought, nor the contributor who brought it. I might add, however, like Anderssl, that this appears roughly in line with the other instances outlined above. My complaint is simply that PCPP ignored a complex discussion that was ongoing between myself and Colipon, to reinsert a certain criticism of Falun Gong by Sima Nan. It is not simple to track down these sources and discuss these issues. In the same edits, he twice removed other well-sourced material added separately, by another contributor. After his first reversion, I left a small remark on PCPP's discussion page, asking for an explanation. Then I reverted the information. He then reverted again. Later, another contributor restored it. This is all visible from the article history. PCPP did not explain himself during this time, and has still not explained himself. I do think that some of the concerns he raises are legitimate, for example, an overreliance on certain sources on the Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, and perhaps some information not directly relevant to that subject. I raised the same issue myself on that talk page. But PCPP's approach was to simply begin deleting and assume that the information was added out of a malicious motive. I do not understand this. At the same time, I will add the qualification that I am unfamiliar with the history of these pages and the contributors involved. I was dissatisfied with the recent edits on the Falun Gong page, however.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by ouyuecheng
I've just had a look at:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Asdfg12345 reverts articles on the basis of deleted material, but when I look at the articles - THERE ARE NO DELETIONS

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ouyuecheng (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Jayen466
We should approach this RFCU with an open mind. The diffs provided here need to be looked at and analysed; some of them do appear to raise valid concerns. This edit by PCPP removes adequately sourced content with an edit summary of "copyedit". I also at first glance see no obvious reason why none of the sourced material removed in this edit should have been suitable.

Many of those who have commented above are already involved in the POV disputes. This needs wider community input and thorough analysis. -- JN 466  13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Asdfg12345 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  06:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) The edits noted above are quite troubling. These types of edits don't appear to have ended; see this 18 March edit, in which PCPP removes all reference to a book by Princeton professor and a mainstream US journalist. While these people are obvious experts on China and have had previous works published by sources such as Yale University Press, PCPP argues that the book added is "not peer-reviewed" and "not cited" in an attempt to wikilawyer its exclusion.  II  | (t - c) 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) It seems that in cases like these Chinese government sources are too often considered "neutral" while outsider academic books somehow fail to achieve that status. Shii (tock) 21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Arilang1234
My one and only interaction with user PCPP is on the question:Should 2008 Beijing Olympic be considered as playing a major role in Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, in which PCPP has a single mined and near adamant attitude, that is the 2008 Beijing Olympic had nothing much to do with "Propaganda" at all, against user Asdfg12345, user:Homunculus, and my opinions. The evidence is Talk:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, section:2008 Summer Olympics. My opinion is, PCPP's businesslike ways of going around deleting material which are unfavorable towards  Chinese Communist government, his "I am serious and I will not give-in" attitude, often refuse to work towards some kind of consensus with others; all of these, make people think that he might be one of the 50 Cent Party. His job is to delete, delete, delete, and he is not here to turn Wikipedia into a richer Encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  06:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.