Vladimir.copic (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::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. [[User:Vladimir.copic|Vladimir.copic]] ([[User talk:Vladimir.copic|talk]]) 07:19, 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. [[User:Vladimir.copic|Vladimir.copic]] ([[User talk: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 |
Revision as of 12:07, 3 February 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- 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