Talk:Alexander Halavais

Suggested Changes

• I'm no longer president of AoIR! -- Halavais (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Potential COI

I do not dispute that I "may" have a confict of interest. I am named in the blog and I dispute it! I have requested that the entry be deleted and have been denied, and I have been prevented from posting to the blog. The fact that I cannot dispute the posting is admitted by Halavais in the blog. The rules on linkin to the blogs of living people are unambiguous when it contains information about "third" parties, Wikipedia becomes complicit if it allows the blog to be linked. Considering that Halavais is a self-admitted "vandal" of Wikipedia I think this violation of the rules should be investigated.Wreid (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are these "umambiguous" rules about linking to blogs of living people that contain informatio about "third parties", and how it makes Wikipedia "complicit" of something? Are you suggesting that if Wikipedia links to a blog that contains controversial material, WP is suddenly complicit within that controversy? I think you're quite off base. 64.7.166.10 (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreid (talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Biographies of Living Persons, section 11, item # 2 deals directly and unambiguously with the issues in this dispute. The rules of Wikipedia constitute a "standard fo practice (SOP)" and protection under any such SOP can be lost if any organization inconsistanly applies (or violates) its own rules. The blog in question is Self-Published and it contains at least one Thrd Party claim. These are the facts and the rules. My WP:ARBreq is based on the rules and the facts, nothing else. My comment about complicity is cautionary, not a threat. I have no dispute with WP. However, IMHO WP needs to CYA and apply the rules consistantly. We are not talking about "controversial material", (as you write), but we are talking about "claims about third parties", as the rule prohibits. I don't know if there are others in the captioned blog, one is sufficient to evoke the rule. I may be off-base as you say, but I don't think so. IMHO, Halavais can remove the link or edit the blog, but he can't have both. All WP can do is apply its own rules (SOP).

I wish you wouldn't hide behind an IP address.

Wreid (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wreid, given your very public off-wiki disputes with the subject of this article you have a clear and unambiguous conflict of interest here. I strongly recommend you not edit this article and confine your comments to the Talk page. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Elkevbo, way back on October 19, you wrote "I'm afraid that I will no longer assume "good faith" with you as that has proven to be a waste of time in the past". What past were you talking about? To that date, all I had edited in Wikipedia was to add a link, which you deleted. If you recall, I quessed your affiliation and I assumed the past you refered to has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I assume you are a respected editor here and I should fear you. I quess I should fear for my Wikipedia priveledges. I don't because, your bias is revealed in your words and the context.

When I started editing I knew you, Hunsinger, and Halavais were watching. I knew that I would be accused of COI. The fact is, I was very careful to render only one opinion and to only reference the subject's own words (verifiable). My interest was to accurately illustrate the full extent of the facts. The one opinion I did render was to ascribe "accidental" to clearly "intentional" behaviors (a positive spin). The "intentionality" is clearly documented (verifiable) in his own writing. Other references were taken from Wikipedia or his own reference list. His blog was already a link in the page. The discussion of the Isuzu affair was already in the page. I simply expanded and clarified the subjects. If you want to have a third opinion on my edits I am open for that. I'm certain that it could be written better. The devil in encyclopedic knowledge is that "factual truth" is the goal. That goal is achieved here. It is an act of dispassionate scholarship.

Of course if you want to dispute Halavais' words, I quess that would be possible. In this case, my words are his! Imagine me having to defend the statements he made about himself. Where is the COI?

As to your advice, I have no intention of editing this page, I'm actually rather proud of it. So I guess I am taking your counsel. Thank you. Wreid (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on your specific edit(s) to this article. My recommendation to not edit the article is the same as I would make to anyone else with a notable connection to this subject, including the subject himself.

It might also serve you well to tone down the paranoia a little bit. No one has ever threatened your editing privileges. I suspect that if you stay away from topics where you have a known bias or COI you'll do just fine here. Most of us do the same thing; I certainly restrain myself from editing the articles of groups, organizations, persons, and topics with which I am closely involved. There's a fine line between "I know enough about this to really be able to help!" and "I'm too close to objectively edit this encyclopedia article." --ElKevbo (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ELKevbo, Your commment about paranoia is like asking a 9/11 victim to not be threatened by a plane circling the building. :-) Wreid (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2 edits

While the term "vandalism" may seem a harsh accusation, it is taken as a quote from Halavais' own written admissions. Wreid (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)