Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

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)

I came here after reading Talk:Denotational semantics. Hewitt seems to advocate making the focus of this particular article be on denotational semantics for concurrent programs, even though the typical presentation of this subject in textbooks begins with denotational semantics for functional languages (the simplest approach). An introductory article on the subject should certainly not present a certain branch of the research first just because it's supposedly the most current research -- it should present the foundations first. That Hewitt either can't understand this pedagogical principle, or doesn't care about it because he's only interested in self-promotion, suggests he's probably not someone who should be contributing to Wikipedia. Catamorphism 08:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read most of the related pages and discussion, I find the outcome of this arbitration quite problematic and disagreeable. It is not disputed that User:CarlHewitt is Carl Hewitt, who is an expert on the subject matter of the actor model and denotational semantics pages.

Some of the complaints were about trivial things like whether "Actor" is capitalized (who cares?), or whether an article that is already too long should have other stuff merged into it.

Re: the physics pages. It is true that the connections between physics and the actor model seem to be taken more seriously by Hewitt than by other actor model researchers, who tend to see them as inspiration or motivational analogies rather than anything deeper. OTOH, there are some direct correspondances, such as the fact that GR and the actors model both avoid global time, unlike many other computational models. So it's not as though Hewitt is making anything up; just perhaps overemphasising a particular viewpoint. (The thing about hidden variables in QM may be an exception, but that was reverted easily enough.)

The "self-promotion" criticism is at least partly misplaced. It is not Carl Hewitt that is being promoted; at most, it is the actor model, which is the subject of active research and development by many people besides Hewitt. And why not promote it (on pages to which it is relevant)? It's a damn fine model, which successfully addresses many of the limitations of other approaches to concurrency.

Re: the denotational semantics page. There is nothing factually incorrect about Hewitt's view that the denotational semantics of sequential, deterministic and functional languages can be treated as special cases of the semantics of concurrent sytems, or that a substantial proportion of recent research on denotational semantics is about how to apply it to concurrency. Whether this is the best way of explaining the subject in an encyclopaedia article is a different question, but it's a debatable point. I disagree that the article necessarily has to present the sequential case first.

AFAICS, Hewitt's contributions have not been original research. They are partly his research, but were previously published in reputable journals. References to future publications were only made on talk pages, and that doesn't violate any WP policy.

In summary, some relatively minor offences -- combined with having strong opinions about topics about which Hewitt is qualified to have strong opinions -- seem to have resulted in a ban that is totally disproportionate, and amounts to unjustified censorship. DavidHopwood 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible ban evasions (2009 Oct.)
See Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt, filed after seeing a puzzling edit to History of the Scheme programming language and investigating further. —Piet Delport (talk) 2009-10-21 01:30

Amendment request: Carl Hewitt (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Prof. Carl Hewitt at 03:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1)
 * 2) Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * CBM


 * Information about amendment request
 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt
If administration gives its approval, then I will only edit talk pages of articles in addition to the user page and its talk page for the account. Hopefully, I won't get dragged into any disputes. It's fine with me if some publications are treated by editors as currently minority views in rapidly changing fields of computer science. Also, as the guidelines say, it is better just to ignore any personal attacks on me and not to say anything personal about another editor. It would be a great improvement if we could get new editors involved in improving the articles that have been blocked from editing in addition to the editors previously involved. Further suggestions are greatly appreciated.Carl (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC) PPS. I admit that I am clueless about some of the customs around here. (For example, I had to ask another editor for the definition of a "300/50 restriction". Also, I just noticed the yellow "Kindly read before editing this page" yellow block on my 30-inch screen above.  You are welcome to move my comments from Ruud's section below into this section. Furthermore, I just learned about "canvassing". Probably, there are lots of unwritten customs as well.) But I am happy to take suggestions!

Unfortunately, by its very structure Wikipedia is somewhat scandal-prone and too easily hijacked by a few with minimal accountability. Over the centuries, academia has developed robust processes and strong accountability. Robust processes are especially necessary in the midst of scientific paradigm shifts because people naturally resist change for reasons that are both good and bad. Scientific controversy is perfectly natural and productive in the midst of paradigm shifts. Using information from scientific publications can provide a foundation for Wikipedia coverage. In the midst of a paradigm shift, there is no consensus scientific view. Also, proponents of a paradigm shift are in the minority at the beginning and sometimes they never become a majority (in some cases because a field splits into disputing camps).

Good scientists put advancing the state of the art over narrow egotistical concerns. Academics at top-ranked institutions do not get any credit or prestige from appearing in Wikipedia; instead it causes them trouble if articles are inaccurate. Carl (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are at least 5 articles that pose particular challenges in that they have been blocked for a long time against attempts to make them better balanced and more accurate:


 * 1) The article Carl Hewitt is very obsolete.
 * 2) The article Actor model is lacking some critical references.
 * 3) There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness.  Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging.
 * 4) The article Logic programming is missing a critical reference.
 * 5) Also, the article Paraconsistent logic is missing an important reference.
 * Since I am an active participant in the above academic discussions, it is not clear how I can most constructively contribute to Wikipedia. However, the above articles are currently inadequate.
 * It would be greatly beneficial if editors who have not been previously involved could help organize discussions to prevent falling back into previous dysfunctional patterns. A major challenge is developing better balanced Wikipedia articles whose development is not blocked by editors involved in the unfortunate history and thereby further alienating academics from contributing to Wikipedia. Of course, it would be highly desirable to attract more academic experts to contribute to Wikipedia in the highly technical subjects of these articles. However, because of some unfortunate experiences on Wikipedia, it is extremely difficult to persuade academics to contribute.  A general pattern has developed for the above articles of editors reverting suggestions for article improvement from its talk page.  The result has been that the articles have become increasingly unbalanced and obsolete.  Contributing constructively to these articles can require a great deal of expertise and specialized knowledge whereas reversion does not require any subject understanding.  For example, not allowing articles to reference the book Inconsistency Robustness may not be in accord with Wikipedia policies.  Perhaps the best fallback is to report ongoing controversies as fairly as possible relying on quotations from academic publications.
 * I am not looking to have my views or contributions unduly or unfairly represented. For academics, Wikipedia works best if articles are as accurate as possible given the limitations of academic publications. Carl (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by CBM
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.) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that editing while logged in provides much more security against cyber attack, because no information about IP addresses is available about logged-in editors, even to admins. It requires a yet-higher, and rare, form of access call checkuser to determine the IP address for a logged-in editor. Thus using a single logged-in account provides IP address security along with a Wikipedia identity in which other editors can develop trust. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been "in the trenches" on some of the affected articles, I think the recent motion has the possibility of improving article maintenance and helping to make feedback from Dr. Hewitt more useful. I sympathize with the concerns about reducing sanctions before certain kinds of editing have stopped, but I want to encourage the committee to keep in mind the possibility of progress. I think there is little risk from the motion, because semiprotection and account blocks are still an option in cases of severe difficulty. I'm not certain that all issues can be resolved quickly, but for some issues (such as a home page link on the biographical article), I think that having a clear line of communication will allow for some relatively quick progress. I want to encourage arbitrators to consider the upsides and downsides of the motion in light of the ongoing difficulties affecting the articles. I think there may be real potential for progress. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
@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)

Statement by MuZemike
I believe I have not made any error back in 2009 with Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive (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)

Statement by Ruud Koot
(Disclaimer: I was one of the filing parties in the original ArbCom case.)

I think it would be preferable to have Hewitt edit under a single account instead of a multitude of accounts and IP addresses. However: Given the amount of time that has passed since the original case, I think it would be useful if the ArbCom at least said something on this matter. —Ruud 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Hewitt would have to do so voluntarily, as enforcing this is not really possible.
 * 2) Formally he is still under an ArbCom restriction against autobiographical editing and has been blocked multiple times violating this restriction and for sockpuppeteering.
 * 3) Over the past decade I've seen little change in his behaviour. I.e., he is still exclusively interested in autobiographical editing, not in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
 * 4) Over the years Hewitt has been continuing to disrupt the talk pages of several articles, which has been mostly handled by semi-protection. This would no longer be effective once his account would become autoconfirmed. I'm not really sure how long this single account would last, for this reason.

Regular semi-protection is sufficient to keep Hewitt-as-IP at bay. Both Hewitt-as-IP and Hewitt-under-an-alternate-account are easily spotted due to their singular interest and idiosyncratic manner of communication. I think we'd all rather see less protection being used than more. The pressing question is, I think, to what extent other editors are required to play along with Hewitt's game that these alternate accounts are supposedly "students" or "disgruntled academics".

(Probably needless to say, the "missing critical references" Hewitt is referring to are unpublished, usually historically revisionist, manuscripts penned by him, and the "academic controversy" he is referring to is one of the "Teach the Controversy" kind&mdash;it exists in his mind only.) —Ruud 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to second User:CBM's remark that having Hewitt being able to make suggestions for article improvements from a single account may be the least disruptive way forward. Concretely:
 * We should encourage Hewitt to contribute from a single account by having the ArbCom unblock a specific account for Hewitt to use. At the same time it should be made clear that certain restrictions are still in effect:
 * no editing of articles that were declared off-limits in the original ArbCom case,
 * suggestions on talk pages are allowed only as long as they remain constructive (i.e., no rehashing of the same "suggestion" over and over again, or posting of announcements of talks or papers), and
 * no vague insinuations or personal attacks.
 * We should discourage Hewitt from contributing using IP-addresses or alternate accounts by having a clear rule stating that contributions that (seem to be) coming from such accounts can be removed from articles and talk pages, and that other editors are strongly advised not to respond to remarks made by such accounts.
 * Hewitt's comments in this thread make me somewhat sceptical about this scheme working, but I think it would at least be worth a shot. Having him acknowledge to abide by such restrictions would also seem to be a prerequisite. —Ruud 13:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved)
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)

Statement by (involved?) Arthur Rubin
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)
 * 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)

Statement by User:Charles Matthews
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 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)

Statement by User:Wvbailey
Per Carl Hewitt's statement above, to quote: "There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness. Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging." I see no evidence that Hewitt understands the principle that an article is no place to push one's POV, and a talk page is not the place for discussions of an "ongoing academic controversy" and self-advertising (e.g. announcing papers etc, see Archive 9 of the article) but rather for concrete suggestions, and discussions of those suggestions, about how to improve the article. BillWvbailey (talk)

Statement by EdJohnston
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)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes

 * 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)
 * Cleaned/formatted request. Please edit Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with information about your request or it may be summarily rejected by the Committee.  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * 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)
 * In a sense yes . They weren't actually blocked as an arb enforcement action. But I see your point regarding the reason for the block. My concern here is that this block can be overturned by any admin so it's not exactly within our jurisdiction. Likewise (historically) ArbCom will generally only overturn arb enforcement actions when there are serious process issues involved (rather than standard appeals). I'd be more willing to see this go to another venue (AE/AN/user talk page) to appeal the block and continue with the current sanctions, plus any other sanctions admins dealing with the unblock see fit. However given the historical changes both to practice and terminology I'm willing (if my colleagues would like to) handle this here with amendments to the case and a possible unblock (but I'd like 's opinion as the blocking admin too). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to treat this as effectively an AE appeal, assuming my colleagues agree. To me the key question, regardless of paperwork matters, is whether others in the topic area agree that this is the best path forward to minimize disruption, so I would like to see further feedback about that. If so, I'd suggest restrictions along the lines of: 1) restricted to a single account only (I don't much care which one); 2) absolutely no editing logged out; 3) restricted to editing only article talk pages, user talk pages, his own userspace, and project discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I noticed this IP edit - whether this is you or an associate or simply a passerby, it's important to point out that the approach being proposed here specifies no editing logged out. It would be helpful if you could clarify if you would accept and abide by that restriction. (Also, please make your comments in your own section here, even if they are responses to others.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gotten a bit scattered since last I looked. This case, and this block, are very old; I suggested treating this current request as essentially an appeal of an arbitration enforcement action. We're already in the middle of it, so blocking the new account and telling Carl Hewitt to appeal via the old one doesn't seem like a good use of time. We're also not really trying to work out whether he "deserves" an unblock by whether or not he's jumped through this or that hoop, but whether there would be less disruption in the topic area if he were permitted to edit with restrictions. However,, the continued arguing and tendentious behavior here isn't helping matters. In order for this to work, you need to be able to follow very specific restrictions, including no editing logged out (your opinions of using IP addresses as identifiers are not relevant), and no making personal attacks (your opinions of whether they're justified are also not relevant). If you are not willing or able to follow those rules, there's nothing more for us to do here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This has gone on long enough, time to try something different. There is a lot of bad behavior in the history of the article, but talk pages should be a space for the subjects of articles to address article content, just like we allow any corporation in the world to request changes to their articles on talk pages.  I endorse Opabinia regalis' suggestions, with two additional restrictions:
 * A prohibition on professor Hewitt from making unsubstantiated personal allegations regarding other editors.  He's already made one on this page, and while we want him to be able to address his concerns, we don't want the talk page to become a space for fights regarding old grudges.  He can bring his complaints to WP:AE or to the Committee.
 * A 500/30 restriction on Carl Hewitt, Actor model, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems to keep away the hordes of disruptive anonymous editors.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
 * I oppose extending 500/30 ever farther than we already have --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamaliel about a solution, and think User:Prof. Carl Hewitt needs to be blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We've never in any context found an truly effective  way to deal with sockpuppets who cannot be clearly identified. 500/30 might be a practical approach   in such some case, including here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again has used this space to level unsubstantiated accusations against an editor.  I am concerned that this behavior will continue should we lift his restrictions.  Professor Hewitt, I understand that you feel aggrieved after years of conflict, but this is the sort of inappropriate behavior which leads to bans on editing.  If you are unable to understand this and act accordingly, we will be unable to lift those restrictions.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Agreed that since he was never unblocked from his main account, this new account is block evasion and should be blocked as well, pending a successful appeal. Given the history of sockpuppetry, and the comments alluded to by Gamaliel above, I don't see a successful appeal happening any time soon. At best a successful appeal would require being restricted to talk pages on subjects of which he has a COI. I am hesitant to support imposing 500/30, except when absolutely necessary, however given the narrow scope of this it is something worth considering. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * We haven't yet heard from about the suggested restrictions. He's still editing here (although not in his own section) arguing that a book of his should be used. He also asked another editor to comment here but I doubt that he understands how we feel about canvassing. I'm with Kelapstick on having a pessimistic outlook, but he did say at the Village Pump " I will only edit talk pages on articles in which I have a personal involvement." I've got nothing more to add until he responds to our discussion.  Doug Weller  talk 12:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to support loosening any restrictions. Professor Hewitt can appeal his block when he has demonstrated an understanding of the issues he's caused, and when he has stopped socking for a substantial length of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with GorillaWarfare. No relaxation of restrictions and the socking must stop. Doug Weller  talk 13:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like for Hewitt to be unblocked and contribute to articles, via the talk pages or otherwise, but I'm very skeptical of someone (with more experience than me) saying things like "For academics, Wikipedia works best if articles are as accurate as possible given the limitations of academic publications"--this only confirms the skepticism by Ruud, above. In addition, we rarely (ever?) unban without some kind of allocution, and that's totally missing here. The letter to the WMF is an accusation at various people, and the socking isn't even addressed. I can't even tell if Hewitt is actively following this discussion on which we have spent so much time, off- and on-wiki. Having said that, I think that the motion is a step forward, and we all owe Carl (the CBM one) for helping to get this ball rolling; it's just hard for me to support a motion that loosens the restrictions on an editor who gives no indication whatsoever that they ever did anything to deserve a ban and seems to continue to deflect. It would be good for Prof. Hewitt to address the substance of this new motion. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions


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:

1. He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.

2. He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.

3. He is permitted to edit only the following: 1. article talk pages

2. user talk pages

3. his own userspace

4. project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.

4. He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.

5. He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors.

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 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It's been long enough that this seems the most prudent option rather than continue to have Prof. Hewitt blocked. While I am little uncomfortable in unblocking when that block doesn't exactly and technically meet our (new) jurisdiction I'm willing to IAR given that the reason for the block is strongly related to the case and that the blocking admin is mostly inactive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've added the last sentence to the last paragraph for clarity, feel free to revert or edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Enough time has passed that it is time to try a different approach to resolving this issue.  Hewitt appears to be sincere in his desire to work within our policies, so we should allow him to do so.  If he does not comply with policies once he is allowed to edit, we can reassess the situation at that point.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Gamaliel.  It's easy enough to re-block if the old problems recur. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Kirill. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Happy to give a try. Will be sanctioned if problems recur I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, given the ROPE. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Casliber. Keilana (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) A reblock would be easy, let's do this now.  Doug Weller  talk 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The socking nust utterly cease for a good long time. I will not support any unblock at this time. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The path to an unblock and to looser restrictions is through understanding what went wrong, and stopping with the sockpuppetry. We don't unblock people just because they've socked and caused enough trouble. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I have to agree with EdJohnston and my colleagues above. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Courcelles and GW --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain