Talk:Michael Pucci

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Queensland / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Michael Pucci is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit warring

Independent Australia is not accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia, especially not for biographical material. Burston's statement under parliamentary privilege is inadequate. Please find a reliable source suitable for BLP content before reinserting.

Please note that contentious BLP material, unsupported by a reliable source, may be removed immediately.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. BLP

If the material is accurate and notable enough to be included in this very short article, it should be easy to find an acceptable mainstream source. --Pete (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyring I only reverted due to it being removed by a (now blocked) COI/POV editor. I have no problem with it being removed with a policy-based argument

. Nobody (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I said that. However the problem was getting to that point. Material was being added to a BLP that was poorly sourced. Anyone should be able to remove it and blocking them because they didn't know the processes was a tad hasty. Is this the image we want to show to new editors? If you do the right thing and remove wrong information we're going to kick you in the guts because you didn't do it the right way. --Pete (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, when a COI editor starts edit warring to remove something specific without adequate explanation, it is a prime example of POV pushing. The warnings on their talk pages told them that they need to explain their edits. If you want to argue that our standard warnings are too Bitey, then go find fault with them not me. Also if in this edit you meant me, then i'll tell you that i consider that a personal attack. Nobody (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you repeatedly restored poorly sourced and contentious BLP material. I'm not sure why you are trying to present this as anything but an oversight on your part. Surely you cannot expect interested parties to meekly accept this? The BLP note above refers to an incident where the subject of a BLP - a COI case, for sure - had to complain about similar unfair treatment. Jimbo himself took action to make policy on this important point. --Pete (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is: Should the text be removed by a COI, POV editor without adequate explanation? No. Should the text be removed by an editor with a policy based reason? Absolutely and that's what you did. If the COI editor said that they removed it due to being unsourced/poorly sourced, then i would have agreed. But their edit summaries were (Removed false information) and (Correct information) and that was not enough of an explanation for the removal. Nobody (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But surely you do not imagine that Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, can only be edited by people with an understanding of the often arcane rules we use? --Pete (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if someone wants to stay, they'll need to familiarise themself with our rules. Every template, be it warning or welcome, has multiple links to the policies they need to learn. If they don't, then they'll sooner ar later blocked as NOTHERE. And that's not being bitey or assuming bad faith; that's how it works. Nobody (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking somebody for complying with Jimbo's specific guidance doesn't seem to be quite the thing. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]