Talk:Paul Moser

Subject is likely notable despite obscurity, but article mostly authored by a COI

Paul Moser has been organically cited in various religion-related Wiki pages and seems to enjoy some legitimate level of notability. However, nearly all contents in this page are from a possible conflict of interest (several single-purpose accounts with "Moser" in the name). In all the years that their edits have stuck, that editor wasn't notified of WP:COI policies until now. Oh well. I've done some trimming of extraneous details in the meantime, but a maintenance tag is on the article now. Mewnst (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RESPONSE It's unclear what the violation is. If the allegation is that there is a COI, this claim is false. Lcmoser has my authorization to make changes to my page. She makes factual and grammatical changes at my direction. The template tag and name do not appear to be in the code in order to get rid of the message. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel this has been mistaken as a personal matter. Nobody owns Wikipedia pages, and no authorization is personally needed by anyone to edit Wiki pages. There is evidently a clear conflict of interest if users are editing the page at the subject person's behest. I strongly recommend consulting the policy page about how Wikipedia is not the real world. Editing pages about oneself or encouraging close associates of one stripe or another to edit your page is a can of worms that should be avoided. Mewnst (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia introduced obvious grammatical and factual mistakes in the entry with my name. (For instance, Portuguese is not Spanish.) Am I supposed to let that stand, with all of its embarrassing effects? I'm stunned that you don't distinguish a mere possibility of conflict of interest and an actual conflict. There's no evidence of an actual conflict in my making the needed grammatical and factual corrections. Let's remove the tag, since you have no evidence of an actual conflict of interest. Otherwise, I appeal to a supervisor. This is unfair treatment, showing real bias. This is not professional treatment at all. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a lapse when I read the Portuguese text and wrongly marked it as a "Spanish translation", but the expectation on Wikipedia is for people to not engage with their own Wiki pages despite those petty embarrassments and grammar errors. There are exceptions with libelous materials, especially concerning living people. That thankfully doesn't apply here; but if it did, there are effective and rapid ways to resolve those issues. The issues with this page are thankfully far milder.

Keep in mind all Wikipedia editors are (ideally) unpaid, unaffiliated volunteers. My evidence for conflict of interest here are the pile of editors with "Moser" in the name and your own admission that they are acting by your encouragement (or "authorization"). Their edits don't significantly puff the page, but their involvement is problematic in itself. My best recommendation is to disengage and let the article live its own organic life without employing editors with your personal "authorization" on the space. Going further than that, as I said earlier, is a can of worms that should be avoided. Mewnst (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't just a 'petty embarrassment' to have Spanish confused with Portuguese; it's a big intellectual blunder, and it's not permissible in my profession. The version you revised also included obvious grammatical mistakes that needed immediate correction. This is about careful, responsible, and accurate revision, and not being paid does not excuse careless handling of an entry. As for the false allegation of something in the entry being 'problematic in itself', you have given no evidence of a problem with lack of neutrality in content. Give me the evidence, and we'll have the entry corrected. Otherwise, let's remove the tag that alleges lack of neutrality. Put me in contact with a supervisor if you refuse to remove the misleading tag. I sense a real bias at work here in your handling of the entry, but I won't venture a diagnosis here. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I just proposed the following resolution at the other Talk page for the entry: 'Let's remove the misleading tag that alleges lack of a 'neutral point of view', and then if you find and give evidence of a lack of neutrality in the content, I'll defer to you. So far nobody has presented needed evidence of lack of neutrality in the entry. That seems fair. OK? -- Paul Moser' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you still engaging with your own page? There are clearly no major errors that warrant this (as in libel, not grammar or petty confusement of translation details). If you have an issue with a COI template sticking on the page, you should have considered the akashic nature of Wikipedia and the clear documentation you've made of people editing the page at your discretion. Mewnst (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so scolding and grudging? I am simply asking that the misleading tag be removed, because you have given no evidence of partiality in the entry's content. I had to intervene to remove factual and grammatical errors you introduced, and they weren't 'petty'. Now I am asking that a misleading tag be removed, if you can't specify partiality in content. OK? Is that too much to ask? No need to be harsh and scolding (review the needlessly harsh and critical language you have used).--Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has given evidence of lack of neutrality in the entry's content; so, I'll take that as a green light for us to remove the misleading tag. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV, in the context of Wikipedia neutrality is technical jargon which should not be confused with its more general definition. I would also note that this page did have major NPOV issues, most of it was completely unsourced which is a big no no when it comes to material about living people. For more on this please see WP:BLP. As a general note to a new editor please remain WP:CIVIL and do not engage in conduct which could be interpreted as personal attacks, failure to do so may result in you losing the privilege of editing wikipedia. Theres a lot of cool things you can do here, I hope you can find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Rather than prolonging this strange exchange, I've done something useful and have added a heap of RS and some extra information to the article. I feel this is enough to remove the tag but happy for another editor to review before this is done. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Mewnst (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the tag. Not sure if this article will amount to much more than a stub but at least we have better sourcing now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Vladimir! Very helpful in moving us out of the quagmire. I really appreciate it. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've found 2 IPs trying to add or remove material from this page lately. This includes 198.245.254.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is registered to the Children's of Alabama, and 2600:1000:bf00:1a27:5c2d:772c:41b0:387c (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is registered to Verizon Wireless somewhere in the United States. wizzito | say hello! 23:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at diffs, they both appear to be the same person. wizzito | say hello! 23:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the work of the previous contributor who gave the full book list is "disruptive editing." In fact, I think that contribution is much more informative than the older version that is up now. Can't someone restore to the previous version with the full book list? Thanks! --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing is that the previous version also removed all of the categories and appeared promotional. wizzito | say hello! 22:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wizzito: I can't see where the previous version is 'promotional'. Can you kindly revise the previous version to remove what you deem 'promotional'? The current version gives the impression that nothing has been published since 2010. Very misleading. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Horse: I had no role in the posting of the previous version that is much better than the current verison. The contributor took the initiative, perhpas because the current version is obviously half-baked. It stops at 2010 as if nothing has been published since then. Very misleading. Did someone block the person who posted the previous version? That would be terribly unfair. Can we restore some fairness here? --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Horse: Can you kindly restore the list of publications found in the previous version of the entry on me? This kind of list is allowed for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Allison. So, it should be allowed in the entry on me, which now ends the list of pubs at 2010. Please help with this. -- Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because something exists doesn't mean its allowed or endorsed. This schoolchild-esque "But he can do it why not meeeeeeee" whining is one of the reasons we so heavily discourage people from becoming involved in their own pages. It generally just leads to their (very public and permanent) embarrassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Whining? Why do so many of you Wiki editors opt for mean-spirited language and exaggerated denunciations? If that makes you feel stronger, whatever. In any case, you have no basis for your charge of whining, and your threat of embarrassment is misplaced. It applies more to the pattern of harsh and unfair treatment by many Wiki editors. How do I get a fair-spirited editor to review my case. one who does not stoop to the low road of mean-spirited jabs? That would be a nice change. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone kindly help to correctt the disruptive editing by some Wikipedia editors on this entry? The unfair treatment is breathtaking, and relief is needed. --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The only disruptive editing I see here is someone using multiple accounts to try to evade a legitimate block placed by an administrator. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you allege a legitimate block? So far as I can see, someone tried to supplement an outdated list of titles (ending in 2010) to include more recent titles. Why is that a problem? Do the Wiki editors need to be this heavy-handed (beyond their custom of giving insults)? I gave an approved example on Wiki that lists book titles in the form omitted from the present entry. Why the double-standard? Why not allow the updates?--Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That was not 'approved' by anybody. Thank you for drawing attention to it, I have removed it. MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So, how does one correct the entry on me in its omitting the last 12 years of published books? That omission does not benefit readers, and it resulted from a Wiki editor who was in a hurry. Please advise. This should be able to be corrected.--Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You're assuming that they should be listed. Wikipedia isn't a CV hosting service or a publishing directory, we do not (and should not) list every book or paper someone has written simply because they exist. Perhaps you're looking for something like goodreads.com, they do that. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows a full listing in many cases, but selectively discriminates. Why the double standard? Editorial arbitrariness on display. Not good. Can you correct this? --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In some cases all the books are notable (have been written about by independent sources) and in others they aren't. That you don't know about or understand the reasons for the differences does not mean there aren't any. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mrollie: the original block for the "someone" using multiple accounts was probably highly excessive and unfair. Hence, the probable "why" behind the usage of multiple accounts. Intentions matter here, especially good intentions. You all can't block every username and IP address in the world, can you? If you think you can, good luck. That seems like an awful lot of wasted time and energy though when you could just put up what was already originally up. Why not just be fair and make the requested updates to the page? That's what's fair. Any minimally educated adult (in the USA or in the world in general) knows that Wikipedia is not (ultimately) a reliable source of information. So why the bizarre and excessive blockage of this one page from accurate updates? Some unreliable, prejudiced editors on Wikipedia are abusing their powers and are only providing more evidence of the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of knowledge/information. The requested information to be put up was already up once. Some ill-willed and biased Wikipedia editor took it down. Why? The best answer I can imagine is probably because they don’t like the author’s viewpoints. What ever happened to respect of other viewpoints? Please just put the requested information up. Requesting the page to be updated with information that was already (originally) there isn’t an extreme request. At the very least, just update the book list. If the author in question is going to have a page up (that they cannot control), then that author deserves to have a page that reflects something closer to “reality”, not some biased construction that resembles something like a Jackson Pollock painting. Please try hard to be an empathic human, not a brick wall. The very first step in that direction is making a “fair” update. According to Wikipedia’s founding rules, anyone should be able to make updates. Certain Wikipedia editors are now neglecting those rules for arbitrary and exclusionary rules, rules that fit the biased whims of seemingly unbalanced Wikipedia editors who appear to live in a Wikipedia fantasyland of editing power. Please fight the impulse to yield to unfair, editing power and yield to a fair request instead. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:BE16:26BD:F163:1204:2F69:573C (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI we can in fact lock the article and talk page in such a way as to have that effect. That will almost certainly be done if the disruption and socking continues. I think much like a small child you're confusing what is fair with what you want. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea who submitted the previous longish comment, but it's very wise and fair, and it merits attention from an editor. Is there a fair-minded editor who will follow through? I hope so. (I don't see why Horse chooses to be insulting instead of helpful.) --Paul Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjmoser (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)