Feng Zhenghu: One Article Deemed “In Violation,” and the Entire Account Suspended? — The Full Story of the Suspension of the Zhenghu Documentary Baijiahao Account

I. Trigger: One Article Deemed in Violation (October 18, 2026, 19:05)

The Zhenghu Documentary Baijiahao account published an article titled “The Shanghai Citizen Who Took the Constitution Seriously: Feng Zhenghu’s ‘Procedural War’ | Shu Wen.” After the article was published, the system displayed “Review not passed” and marked it “Content is in violation.” This was the immediate trigger for the entire incident.

II. Consequences: Account Suspended, Earnings Frozen

After the article was deemed in violation, the platform immediately displayed a notice saying “Your account has been suspended.” The pop-up stated that the account had violated the platform’s service agreement, and that the platform had therefore suspended it and frozen its earnings. The pop-up offered two options: “Log out” and “I want to appeal.”

III. Credit Score Reduced to Zero

Meanwhile, the account’s credit score was deducted all at once to 0 (on a scale of 0–100), with the assessment recorded at 19:00 on October 18. The credit score record listed in detail the time of the deduction, the content involved, the score change, and the explanation for the reason, and included an appeal link. The page also stated, “The account has engaged in violations… The platform has the right to suspend the account.” A credit score reduced to zero usually means the account has faced relatively severe action, making subsequent restoration more difficult.

IV. Appeal Filed (October 18, 2026)

That day, the author Shu Wen (Feng Zhenghu) submitted an appeal through the “Appeal progress for content” link, on the following main grounds:

The article records personal experiences and reflections on upholding the Constitution and laws, defending legal rights in accordance with the law, and promoting the rule of law;

The content does not violate laws or regulations and is beneficial to society;

Understanding that the platform has the right to block the article if it considers it unsuitable for publication, the author nevertheless asks the platform to reconsider its decision to suspend the entire account and revoke the right to publish works on Baijiahao;

The author promises to strictly follow the platform’s rules if the account is reinstated.

After submission, the appeal status showed “Being processed by the platform,” and the platform promised to notify the author of the result within 48 hours.

V. Appeal Still Being Processed (October 21, 2026, 20:37)

Three days later, the appeal progress page still showed “Being processed by the platform,” and said processing was expected to be completed within one day, with the result to be sent through an in-app message. At that point, the account remained suspended, and no final decision had been made on the appeal.

Summary

The timeline is as follows: at 19:05 on October 18, the article was deemed in violation, after which the account was suspended, earnings were frozen, and the credit score was reduced to zero; the author filed an appeal that day; as of the evening of October 21, the author was still waiting for the platform’s decision. The point of contention is that the author believes the issue concerned only whether a single article was suitable for publication, while the platform escalated the penalty to suspending the entire account and revoking publishing privileges. The two sides clearly disagree over whether the penalty was proportionate.