User:RightQuark/sandbox/1

User Amigao has used multiple reverts to remove the CCP/Global Times's response to US/Western accusations of space militarization.

The inclusion of the CCP's response is not for the benefit of any given side in the matter (especially since their response is overt, almost cheesy propaganda) but to present a WP:NPOV. More importantly, the user cites the general unreliability of Global Times to present factual information but ignores WP:SELFSOURCE in doing so.

WP:SELFSOURCE states:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

The original text cites CGTN as the source of CGTN's claim, not as a basis for the reliability of other facts. User Amigao in his first removal claims "need a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims; see: WP:GLOBALTIMES" - lacking acknowledgement that there is no factual claim being cited.

My response cited WP:SELFSOURCE "This source is a clear example of WP:SELFSOURCE. CTGN is (as a CCP mouthpiece) being cited to convey the CCP response to an issue, not to support a claim/fact. Per WP:RSPUSE "Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations"

User Amigao's second revert reads "this use of a deprecated source goes far beyond WP:ABOUTSELF; feel free to ask on WP:RSN for further clarification". Amigao does not explain in any fashion how CGTN goes "far beyond Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF."

I've taken to this Talk page after Amigao's third revert. I kindly request User:Amigao explain how "this use of a deprecated source goes far beyond WP:ABOUTSELF" when using CGTN as a source for CGTN claims. THis exact issue has been corrected before: Amigao source removals.

For context, this user has been blocked, warned, and threatened with total bans for edit warring specifically on Chinese deprecated sources. In nearly all, Amigao has been accused (and banned) as bot-like mass removal of deprecated sources, even though Wikipedia:Deprecated sources clearly states that deprecation is not a blanket ban (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Further examples here:

Admin noticeboard, Amigao aggressive edit warring on China topics

Admin noticeboard, Amigao aggressive edit warring on China topics

Block for bot-like removal of references

Edit warring and edit block threat 1

Edit warring and edit block threat 2

Edit warring and edit block threat 3

Edit warring and edit block threat 4

Edit warring and edit block threat 5

Edit warring and edit block threat 6

Edit warring and edit block threat

Mass removal of Global Times sources without discussion

Removing deprecated sources qualifying as WP:SELFSOURCE

Abuse of deprecated source removal

Amigao edits considered extremely disruptive

Disruptive mass edits removing sources