Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

message: As of 11 December 2005, one of the principle complainants User:R.Koot appears to be on an indefinite wikivacation. 
I'm not sure where to note this fact, but it does seem important to note.
I also want to remark that Carl Hewitt's activities appear to continue unabated, and after a cursory review, I suspect that they may eventually bring in more complaints. linas 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why this page is still on my watchlist, but IMHO, Carl is and has been shown wrong about several points peripheral to his expertise -- relationships with QM and GR, according to the experts here, and with mathematical logic, according to another expert (me).  Or are you saying that I would be justified in removing his statements that mathematical logic (particularly, some forms of modal or temporal logic) cannot accurately model the possible outcomes of concurrent computation -- which would lead to an edit war if he or his allies were still actively editing those articles.  I don't think the penalty is severe or being enforced.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I would like to encourage Arbcom to discuss amendments to the original arbitration remedy that make article improvement and maintenance more straightforward. The persistent editing of particular articles and talk pages by numerous logged-out IP addresses, together with an inability of Dr. Hewitt to edit under a logged-in account because of an indefinite block , make article maintenance challenging. In particular, editors cannot assume that the IP edits are by Dr. Hewitt, nor can they assume that the edits are not by Dr. Hewitt, which makes communication challenging. If Dr. Hewitt were permitted to edit from a logged-in account verified by Arbcom to be controlled by him, it might facilitate article improvement by making it clear who is proposing particular edits. Unfortunately, the continued presence of tendentious IP edits even on the recent Village Pump thread suggests that longer-term semiprotection may still be necessary on the affected articles   . I think Arbcom may be able to strike a balance that, at least, allows us to clearly separate edits by Dr. Hewitt from edits by IP addresses. (I will be traveling from March 21 to March 25, and my responses my be delayed.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think that the general trend of discussion in this amendment request is unfortunate. As long as numerous IP editors (not logged in)  post tendentious comments on article pages, and the official account for Dr. Hewitt is blocked, it will be impossible for Dr. Hewitt to make *any* suggestions on article talk pages. The current situation is that edits by the IP editors will simply be removed per the existing arbitration remedy, and articles will be semiprotected in some cases. If there were no more IP edits, and Dr. Hewitt edited talk pages under a single logged-in account, then it would be possible for him to at least *suggest* edits on talk pages. That is the goal I wanted to encourage in posting to this thread originally. Of course, all suggestions for article modification need to be weighed in light of Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:DUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." But, even the possibility of making suggestions on talk pages would require a willingness of all parties to come to a consensus here on a path forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by CBM 

message: @Callanecc, CarlHewitt was blocked for abusively using socks - primarily to get around his Arbcom-mandated topic ban on autobigraphical editing. That would generally be seen as an arbcom-enforcement action even if it is not directly listed as such, rather than a normal admin action. Are you saying that because it was a block for socking, its not an Arb-enforcement? The cause was his socking to get round his arbcom-restrictions. If those restrictions didnt exist, he wouldnt have socked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Only in Death 

message: I believe I have not made any error back in 2009 with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive#Report date October 21 2009, 01:29 (UTC) (when I was an SPI clerk, issuing the blocks based on the CheckUser's findings); the blocks were found to be in violation of the ArbCom remedy back in 2006 (and modified a year later in 2007 to specifically address the situations brought up in the various sock puppet cases).
That being said, if the current ArbCom wishes to amend the request given more modern circumstances, I have no opinion (nor any opposition) on it, provided WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:COI continue to be strictly followed. However, historically that has been more easily said than done, including the talk page usage. --MuZemike 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 

message: I'm opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion of 500/30 restrictions on those articles.  All or almost all of the IP disruption they've seen has come from Prof. Hewitt and/or his associates.  If the sanctions on Prof. Hewitt are relaxed and that disruption continues/resumes, then relaxing the sanctions has failed in its purpose, so in that situation the sanctions should be put back in place.  Many high quality contributions to those articles (and math articles in general) have come from other IP's.  And while the drastic 500/30 remedy might have been justified in extraordinarily inflamed disputes like Gamergate, it shouldn't be resorted to for comparatively minor stuff like this.I'm dubious towards Prof. Hewitt's appeal for various reasons including some of the content issues he mentions in his statement, but as everyone says, it's been a long time, so I'll stay neutral.  , , or  might have something to say or know of some others to invite. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved) 

message: I don't know if this requires ArbCom action, but there are both ArbCom and community bans on Carl's (and his students') edits.  I'm not sure the community ban could be removed without modifying the ArbCom ban.  As for the ban, I would be in favor of Carl (or his students) being allowed to make suggestions on relevant article talk pages, but not be allowed to edit articles, make personal attacks (even if they think them justified), or repeatedly argue any points.  I think this could be formalized, but I'm not sure, as Carl and his students have repeatedly violated the existing ban.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Needless to say, I could be considered "involved", although almost all of my dispute with Carl was acting as an Admin.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by (involved?) Arthur Rubin 

message: I was involved in the original case, and was approached to comment here. 
I think it should be recognised that in all related matter there is a basic issue with Wikipedia:Third-party sources: it should be applied rigorously to all material in Wikipedia associated with Professor Hewitt's work. I quite realise that page is an essay, not a guideline. The formulation that sources should be "entirely independent of the subject being covered" is key, however. 
What we have seen in the past has been an undermining of the encyclopedic principle that we cover academic matters by compiling reference material. ArbCom should support the efforts of those who wish to see this general area of computer science covered neutrally, with no undue emphasis on one school of thought.
My opinions here are strongly held. I'd be happy to comment privately to ArbCom on my grounds for believing this area of editing is worth their close attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Charles Matthews]] 

message: This is an appeal by an editor who has been sanctioned in the past and whose willingness to change their approach to Wikipedia is not in evidence. The statements offered in this appeal contain enough internal contradictions to make a reviewer very dubious. Judging from the edits by Special:Contributions/50.0.72.133  at VPM he is engaged in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry even now. This appears to rule out using the provisions of WP:OFFER for another six months. He appears to think that, if his students improve the articles instead of him, he avoids the problem of COI editing. Of course that looks like meatpuppetry to us, and it is hard for anyone to tell the difference. Also the students have no concept of using reliable third-party sources to document the various breakthroughs that are claimed, for example a solution to Russell's paradox. (See the above comment by User:Charles Matthews). Per User:Wvbailey it is unlikely that our article on Gödels incompleteness theorem is in urgent need of expansion to include Hewitt's treatment of the matter. If the sanctions on Hewitt are loosened we might have to fend off Hewitt's attention to the article on Gödel's theorem. In the linked discussion someone was insistent that we link to a preprint of Hewitt's on the arXiv, not a reliable source and self-published so far as Hewitt is concerned. Do we want to unleash someone who thinks that his own work is a top-quality source to use in our articles on famous problems?  If Arbcom lets this appeal expire with no action then they won't have foreclosed addressing the matter at AE or ANI, though I wouldn't be optimistic there either. For more background see
*Carl Hewitt's 2015 letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and
*The March 2016 thread at VPM.  – EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by EdJohnston 

message: :This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Fixed notification diff for CBM. Amortias (T)(C) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes

message: *It looks to me that User:CarlHewitt is blocked from editing for sockpuppetry not as an arbitration enforcement action or by the Committee but normal administrative enforcement. If that's the case then the block needs to appealed on User talk:CarlHewitt, or if access to that account has been lost, on User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt - see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. I am not willing to consider amending the case until Professor Hewitt has returned to active editing using an account. Given that the block is not under the control of ArbCom (it wasn't arbitration enforcement or a Committee decision) I'd rather let the community handle this first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * I do think that Prof. Hewiit's voluntarily rewriting his statements to remove personal jabs is a good sign.  I think we should consider some probationary lifting of the restrictions, if only due to the length of this conflict.  Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: * your point about not having gone through the correct hoops to request unblocking is well noted, and I have no issue with treating this as both a request for amendment and an unblock request, however at the time of my writing, I didn't read anything that would convince me to support unblocking. That said, it has been modified significantly, which is good. --kelapstick(bainuu)  03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
Enacted - Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :
In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
Enacted - Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions