Talk:Michael Pucci

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)