Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oleg Alexandrov (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 20 December 2007 (→Sock puppets: version restored, comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. CarlHewitt (talk · contribs) / Hewitt, Carl Hewitt, Carl (susp. socks)

Page protection

I've archived and protected this talk page because people were adding problematic material. As the article is currently protected from editing, there's no need for this to be open at the moment anyway. If anyone has a query, by all means e-mail me. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Aactually, as it is protected from editing at the moment the talk page does need to be open for protected edit requests. Viridae 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has such a request, they can e-mail me or another admin. I'd like to keep it protected for a short time, Viridae. SlimVirgin 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah understandable. I am also open to making small, uncontroversial edits for people, they can request them on my talk page while this page is protected. Viridae 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is appropriate to protect an article talk page, and definitely not because of something like this. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Removing discussion of articles in major newspapers from talk pages. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus there is clearly that this should not be protected. As a fellow admin, I therefore ask SV to remove the protection. DGG (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on WT:BLP. SlimVirgin 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages ban

Can we mention (or even just link) this in the article?

• Kleeman, Jenny (2007-12-09). "Misplaced Pages ban for disruptive professor". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 2007-12-10. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I know it may be a bit self-referential, but I think the article is still marginally relevant to the topic. Today, Misplaced Pages is big and if some prominent figure was banned from editing Misplaced Pages, that becomes an interesting fact. -- Taku (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is especially notable in the context of his overall career. Redquark (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Redquark. One article written more than a year after the event indicates that it's not that important. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Guardian article was triggered by recent events over the past couple of months during which Hewitt anonymously created and edited a series of new articles promoting his work. These articles have now been deleted, so it is not easy to recreate their history. However, the note at the bottom of the following page gives some idea of what has been going on: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_logic_programming&action=edit Logperson (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably not a major event to the person, but since The Guardian is a major newspaper, to me, it seems to make sense to add a link to the newspaper article in this article. But if others think it's not worth even mentioning, then it's ok with me.-- Taku (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Following a suggestion from Black Falcon, I've unprotected the page to allow people to discuss the Observer article for a few days, as some editors seem to feel that discussion is required. The suggestion is that the discussion will be blanked after a few days as a courtesy. I was thinking three days, although no one's going to blank it mid-sentence so if it takes a bit longer, that's fine. But the idea is to discuss it, wrap it up, then blank the discussion. I hope the editors here see that as a fair compromise. SlimVirgin 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for starters then can someone explain to me why this isn't a reliable source? I understand not giving it much mention in an article, since Hewitt's notability isn't generally connected to it and so it should have at most a small mention (probably a sentence or two) but I don't see how the source is unreliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article in question, and have read Slim's arguments both here and at talk:BLP. I have seen no compelling reason to blank the discussion on the relevance of including a source to this article. As such, I have put the discussion back (see the section before).

SlimVirgin, I would suggest that instead of blanking the discussion again you make the case for what harm is done in keeping it in. The usual way of handling talk page discussions is to let them run their course and have them archived. Suppression and blanking of discussions go against the spirit of Misplaced Pages should not be used except in very good circumstances. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if we decide not to mention it at all courtesy blanking isn't so rare. We don't need to keep perfect archives of talk pages. I don't however see any good reason to extend a courtesy in this case. Transparency overides courtesy to banned editors especially when everything we are talking about is clearly factually accurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. The Guardian article mentions Hewitt complaining about users and admins harrasing him. This wiki article is already protected. A further reaction along having the talk page protected, and any discussion suppressed and blanked, is probably not the right thing to do given the circumstances. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I'm not sure that naming the list of sock puppets on this talk page is inapproriate. They're not banned from Misplaced Pages, merely banned from editing his articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a set of {{Notable Wikipedian}} boxes really the appropriate way to do this though? The single box links to his main account talk page, which links to the list of suspected sock puppets (which is more complete anyway), that's sufficient for enforcement of keeping him from using them to edit this article (I didn't know until you said, by the way, that there was a topic ban in place). An article talk page is more visible, and the "notable wikipedian" box provides less context. —Random832 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to his suspected sockpuppets category to the box, is this sufficient? —Random832 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think that covers it. Thanks. (I wrote a longer message, but it's more appropriate for WP:AN or the Village Pump.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We can archive a link to the blanked discussion. In the future, the question of his alleged self promotion ... will come up again, and we need to be able to point to where a consensus was found so we don't repeat the discussion unless new facts or new arguments arise. For my part, I see no good reason to raise the issue of self promotion in this article, nor to include ... in the article. People self promote all the time and people edit Misplaced Pages with a conflict of interest all the time. Neither are usually notable, and I see nothing about this case that makes it notable. If other reliable sources make a point of dwelling on the allegation of his self promotion, then our reliable sources will have deemed it notable - but not until then. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the article twice in one post, and in an edit summary, when it's already linked above, and you're arguing that there's no need to link to it, is completely gratuitous. Please do not do it again. SlimVirgin 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. You are coming at this from the point of view of trying to cause minimum harm, which to you includes a minimum number of mentions of the exact link in question. I am coming at this from the point of view of being maximally clear and precise in my language. You seem to repeat the problem of not realizing that lack of clarity is not helpful. Please do not do it again. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

http://hewitt.wikicensored.info/ is apparently his response. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the sudden interest in clarity on this page? You have never edited the article, or the talk page before today. SlimVirgin 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in clarity everywhere, hence my keen lifelong interest in logic. But I take it that what you wish to know is what brings me to this page. I'm an old retired guy who likes to spend his retirement learning new things. For a while I found it fun and useful to record new things I learned from reliable sources here at[REDACTED] and comeback later to see what new interesting things people had added. Lately, I'm doing less of that and have been studying Misplaced Pages itself and when I come across something I feel I can help with, then I try to help. That was my intent here. To try to help - just like you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the diff deleted by SlimVirgin, because the deletion was done without explanation, and since one should use administrative powers to hide entries in the history only in appropriate circumstances. SlimVirgin, rather than attempting that the deletion again, I would like to ask you to make the case for what harm is in discussing a news article relevant to this Misplaced Pages article. The Guardian is a respectable newspaper, and the article is written from an appropriate point of view. Also, suppressing articles that are somewhat critical of[REDACTED] users and administrators will just add fire to the argument that Misplaced Pages is ruled by a cabal whose members purge anything not in agreement with their views. In short, let's use admins power less and discuss more. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors