Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Writing about yourself

1) You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. Writing about yourself and your work is inherently point of view, see Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. prefer 1.1 ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Wary of the absolute language, see below. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milder wording

1.1) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC) A little better
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Banning due to disruption

2) Users may be banned from editing articles if there is history of editing the articles in a disruptive way.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Carl Hewitt

1) Carl E. Hewitt is an Associate Professor (Emeritus) in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who has done significant creative work, see Carl Hewitt.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Aggressive autobiographical editing

2) Carl Hewitt has aggressively edited articles which concern himself and his work in a point of view way, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Carl Hewitt banned from autobiographical editing

1) Carl Hewitt is banned from autobiographical editing regarding himself and his work or that of his students. This ban includes creation of links and categories which refer to that work.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. With the caveat that he's not banned from any articles (independent of probation), but from making autobiographical edits to them. Dmcdevit·t 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

:# Still thinking about it. I'm concerned since he is a recognized expert in the field. See if I can think of an alternative proposal. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Hewitt placed on Probation

2) Carl Hewitt is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Carl Hewitt edit any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close, all passed. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. close ➥the Epopt 05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-case motion

Archived from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Motions in prior cases

To clarify the ruling in the Carl Hewitt case of February 2006 [1], I move:

  1. The ban on Carl Hewitt's autobiographical editing was not time-limited and still applies.
  2. The scope of the ban should include Hewitt's current research areas, such as concurrency, and all promotion of the value of the work of his past students such as William Clinger, work on the actor model, logic programming, and accounts of the development of major concepts of theoretical computer science. This is in addition to areas already ruled off-limits.
  3. Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments.
Charles Matthews 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (recused in the case)
As there are currently 8 active arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), a majority is 5. The editor whose conduct is at issue has been notified of this motion and invited to comment on the talkpage.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain: