User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt

Please leave any suggestions and comments for me here. Thanks! Carl

User page (not an article)

Hello, I'm Spirit Ethanol. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a template to your userpage, indicating that it is not an article. See also WP:AUTOBIO for our rules on autobiographical material. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added a header to further clarify that the userpage is not a Wikipedia article. Carl (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration amendment request

Hi Carl, There is an arbitration clarification request you have logged above that appears incomplete. Could i ask you to either complete the request per the guidance provided, request the amendment request is removed or if you are part way through you may request assistance with completing the request if you are unsure on specifics of formatting or required content.

If you need assistance please feel free to leave me a note here or on my talk page and we can discuss further. Amortias (T)(C) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amortias! I left a note on your home page. Carl (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should user pages be indexed?

I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are links allowed on user pages?

Are links allowed on user pages? In the particular case of the review of the book "Inconsistency Robustness" by Professor JJ Meyer, it might be difficult for other editors to find the review without a link.

I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should other editors edit a user page?

Should other editors just go ahead and edit a user page?

Would it be better to have a discussion first? Carl (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA comments

I've removed your comments regarding IP addresses as off topic. The Committee has no jurisdiction regarding the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Editors are welcome to post them to a more appropriate location.Carl (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

If you restore external links to your user page or remove NOINDEX again, you will be blocked from editing. You will not be using Wikipedia as a platform to promote your work. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand things correctly, it looks like the NOINDEX that was inserted has no effect because another editor has pointed out that user space is not indexed. It turns out that with a little work, it is not necessary to have external links because other Wikipedia editors can find published references using a search engine.Carl (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the link to Professor JJ Meyer's review of the book "Inconsistency Robustness" is self promotion? Of course, Wikipedia editors can find the book "Inconsistency Robustness" just by going to Amazon. But it is much harder for them to find JJ's review on the publisher's website.Carl (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Wikipedia policy on external links in user pages? Is the policy uniform across all user pages?Carl (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Wikipedia policy on indexing user pages? Is the policy uniform across all user pages?Carl (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for user pages are at Wikipedia:User pages. The condensed version is that your user page may contain brief autobiographical information, but should be used mostly for interpersonal discussion and coordination of your work on Wikipedia. You will note the bold text: "Pages used for blatant promotion ... are usually considered outside this criterion". Promotion of your non-Wikipedia work (including links to it and to reviews of it) is inappropriate, especially considering the fact that self-promotion is one of the principle concerns other editors have about your presence here. Visibility of reviews of your work is not at all a concern of Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not know about Wikipedia:User pages. My intent is to be helpful to other Wikipedia editors by providing information so that they know who I am and where I am coming from. Suggestions for improvement are appreciated.Carl (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still wondering about the appropriateness of placing a no indexing notice on a user page. Has the notice been placed on other user pages? Should all user pages not be indexed by Wikipeda? Carl (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few points

To reiterate the comments above, please stop making off-topic posts at ARCA. It is not a forum for general discussion.
I am not trying to make off topic comments. Admittedly, I am still learning the customs around here. Carl (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary about paradigm shifts, for example, is entirely off-topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of paradigm shift is important to understanding the current state of play of controversies in Computer Science concerning inconsistency robustness.Carl (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are actually concerned about editing while logged out, there are technical ways to help avoid this problem; for example, you could add #wpSave {background-color:#98fb98;} to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/common.css, which would make the "save page" button green while you are logged in to this account. CBM is quite right here that it is much more secure to edit using an account.
Thanks for the tip!

I agree with CBM that it is much more secure to edit while logged in, which is what I tried to do. Unfortunately, I got caught out a couple times causing big security problems. Carl (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you accidentally edit logged out, you can contact the oversight team for help.
Unfortunately, I don't quite understand how to do this. Clicking on the link sent me to a page that said that it was owned by the arbitration committee. Carl (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that the IP address is public long enough that attackers can find it even if it is later deleted. Carl (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I thought that page would have more of an explanation. WP:OVERSIGHT explains the process, User:Oversight is a way to contact them by using the "Email this user" feature. They are usually very quick, and there is very little likelihood of "attackers" lurking around in the interim. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! However, these days attackers don't lurk; instead they have systems that exfiltrate IP addresses in as near real time as they can without drawing attention to themselves.Carl (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not rocket science. Or you email, or ping, an administrator. As for real-time sweepers, with an article on you and a user page that's also an article on you, there is no privacy. Besides, you're a computer scientist, and I am an English professor--if I can figure this out, then surely you should be able to. OR, what do you make of this user page/biography? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any websites other than Wikipedia that publish their users IP addresses?Carl (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have (legitimate) mirrors, but not quite that fast. Really, there is nobody scraping all of Wikipedia in real time hoping to harvest random users' IPs. (The NSA doesn't need to bother ;)

As for the user page, well, userspace is noindexed these days, so there's little harm. There's a template, {{userpage otheruse}}, for the "not an article" issue; see this edit (feel free to tweak or revert - but this is a common way to solve this problem, and includes a note about mirrors if that is a concern). Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant if you don't start engaging with the concerns being expressed at ARCA. If we decline your request, this account will be blocked. You need to decide whether you are willing and able to follow the restrictions that have been proposed, and tell us as much, with no further commentary on side issues.
Over at the user pump in (updated) response to CBM, I said:
"Thanks for the suggestion Carl. I have created a new account in which I will for now only edit the user page and talk page for this account in addition to administration pages that I get dragged into. If administration gives its approval, then I will only edit talk pages of articles. It would be a great improvement if we could get 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) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you've consistently avoided giving a direct response to the question of whether you would follow the restrictions suggested at ARCA. Do you understand the restrictions being proposed? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more things over at ARCA. Further suggestions are appreciated.Carl (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We're discussing this and will get back to you. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of proposed restrictions

The following is a draft of the proposed editing restrictions pertaining to you. This is a draft only; it is still subject to change. I'm posting it here for review because ARCA is a busy page and can be a bit difficult to follow. Would you agree to follow these restrictions, if we were to pass them or something very similar? (Note that this for the sake of providing information; please mention any specific concerns if you have them, but this is not an opportunity for negotiation.)

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:

He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
He is permitted to edit only the following:
article talk pages
user talk pages
his own userspace
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.
He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
He may not engage in personal attacks or make unsubstantiated personal comments about other editors.

Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above looks good. Hopefully there will not be any more accidental logged out edits now that I have the little green button to remind me :-) How do I report any accidental logged out edits to the oversight team? (I will correct the page to substitute my signature when I notice the mistake.) It will not be necessary for the oversight team to correct the edit history because the IP address will already have been exfiltrated.Carl (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may email the oversight team at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carl (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl, thanks for agreeing to this. I've just posted this proposal for the other arbitrators to review. Bear in mind that this is decided by majority vote and there may still be changes; it also remains possible that it doesn't work out, in which case the most likely outcome is that this account would be blocked and you'd be asked to spend some time away from Wikipedia before appealing again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. And many thanks to you and CBM for your constructive contributions. Carl (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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:

He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
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.
He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions