Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Carl Hewitt

I suggest that those interested in perspectives on this controversy see User talk:CarlHewitt#A quote and User talk:CarlHewitt#Arbitration with Rudy Koot and Edward Schaefer Thanks, -- Carl Hewitt 05:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

26 November 2005

27 November 2005

  • CSTAR, I'm not opposed to conflict, but for instance, talk of banning by some persons clearly conveys a desire to end the conflict by brute force rather than by discussion of the content. I've seen this a dozens of times - a handful of aggressive amateurs, sometimes with chips on their shoulders, jump all over a new editor who happens to be a subject-matter expert in some area, hassling him/her endlessly about technical points, style, and any failure to conform to WP culture. Some SMEs lie low (or edit anonymously) just to avoid this fate, others quit after a couple months. My observation is that most SMEs start out trying to maintain the style and process they're used to (for reasons of ego, efficiency, WP lameness, etc), and if they last, they'll either come to see the value of the WP way or change WP - both have happened. Carl has chosen to jump in the deep end immediately, before he's learned all the ways that more-experienced people use to change WP to work more the way they'd prefer. IMHO his boldness doesn't actually get him where he wants to go any faster than a subtler approach, but his practice is well within the bounds of normal editor behavior, and I fault people for trying to turn it into blocks and bans. Stan 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
PLEASE, do a litle background reading before picking sides. Carl definitely is not an expert about several subjects he writes about (in contrast to several editors he has a conflict with). Furthermore, I only wish Carl banned from editing physics, mathematics and computer science (for a while) so he can learn how to become a great contributor while editing articles he does not believe he is an expert in. — R. Koot 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • [4] Stan Shebs to Rudy Koot.-- Carl Hewitt 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • It's interesting that you say I'm calling the "entire affair" nitpicking, when I carefully did not quantify it. While there are legitimate causes for complaint, as is true of every editor, you've gone way overboard in looking for minor things to expostulate about. (If only "over-referencing" was the most common problem with WP articles!) In fact, you might want to reconsider asking for arbitration (it's not too late to withdraw) - it's not uncommon for the arbcom to find against complainants who engage in histrionics. Stan 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I assure you I've read all your complaints, and more besides. Just another reminder why I've never stood for the ArbCom, I always feel like I need to take a shower after reading one of their cases. Stan 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

10 December 2005

  • Carl,
Just wanted to mention that I think you've made a vast improvement in the structure of the Actor model article recently. In particular, the break between previous models and message passing is a good one, and really helps readability. Nice work!
I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to discuss the ins and outs (or puts and gets :-) of channels vs. direct communications with me. It's been quite enlightening, and has given me a few ideas for new directions in my own research.
Regards,
-- Allan McInnes 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear Allan,
Yes, thanks to your help the Actor model article is greatly improved.
I am pleased that our discussion was productive and helped you in your research.
It is a great pleasure to collaborate with someone who is both knowledgeable and fair!
Regards, -- Carl Hewitt 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

11 December 2005

  • If only I had the power to make any Wikipedian quit just by saying something! There are a long list of editors who irritate me a lot. But when an active editor quits WP all of a sudden, there's a lot more to it than one comment by one editor, or even a pattern of difficulties attributable to one or a few editors. Sometimes they're just taking a wikivacation, or perhaps they finally realize that WP doesn't actually work the way they thought it did. One of the things that's struck me about the whole Carl Hewitt thing is the degree of upset over what are really rather small changes. You know, there are parts of WP that have ongoing multi-year battles affecting the aggregate structure of thousands of articles, with talented editors trying to make sense of inconsistent authorities, and it's just not considered worthwhile fighting over a single sentence or categorization. My own activity du jour includes identifying and deleting the thousands of copyright-violating images, so we don't get sued out of existence! Even if Carl's edits are original research, or kind of flaky, or whatever, when considering WP as a whole they are way down in the noise. So part of what I see is a lack of perspective on the scale of the problem. Another thing I see is a lack of willingness to engage in (social) experimentation - this is very likely the first time that a distinguished retired professor has decided to publicly dabble in WP, and what we know of sociology in the science world suggests that there are going to be certain unique problems (such as an expert tinkering outside his area, or being tempted to sneak in original stuff). I have a hard time believing I'm the only person that has thought of this, but going by all the diffs, everybody else is totally astonished that things have developed this way. Y'all are smart people, I'm sure you can think of ideas more clever than banning. (If I had more time, I'd volunteer to mediate, sorry.) Stan 02:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
You wrote If only I had the power to make any Wikipedian quit just by saying something! It seems you do. Unfortunately, it was CSTAR, a highly valued editor, not some pesty crank. I did say last straw, and everyone recognizes that your regrettable comment was just that.
Please indulge me; I am testing a hypthothesis: I guess you are not a scientist and not trained as a scholar in some other discipine--- am I right? Because I'd find it much harder to understand your attitude/judgement if you were trained as a scholar.--- CH 03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
(You could have avoided the implied insult by reading my user page a little more closely, it has a thumbnail bio.) Going by your own commentary on WP in general, I think you're generally aware of its current strengths and weaknesses, but that it hasn't really sunk in that as one of the editors, it is partly up to you to choose how WP works; it's not something that you're given and can't do anything about. Not surprising that you might feel stressed as a result, that is a common reaction to a sense of powerlessness. But we are continuing to invent how WP should work; should we create a formal review process (there's been a dozen proposals, I have a couple of my own to write up)? Are anon edits worth it? (the statistics are unclear). WP today works rather differently than when I started almost three years ago - back then only a handful cared about citations and references, there were no templates or categories to organize things or provide boilerplate, and copyright checking was nearly nonexistent. As Jimbo says, this is Calvinball, and we'll keep changing the rules as necessary to achieve the goal. Stan 07:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

21-22 December 2005

See Discussion with Allan McInnes from arbitration and prior discussion with Allan at Talk:Actor_model#Focus_of_this_article.

Allan has subsequently extensively amended his evidence below (see diff [10]). I have attempted to incorporate his changes into the discussion above.

However, I would like to note that this is an awkward way to negotiate improvements in Wikipedia articles.

Since our task is to create the world's largest free encyclopedia, we press on regardless.

Regards,-- Carl Hewitt 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Calvinball

The Wikipedia has a couple of hundred thousand more articles now than when I first started contributing half a year ago to areas of science and technology. In some areas, basic articles have been written and as their development has continued are now faced with issues that are right at the edge of the state of the art.

However, so far very few experts have showed up and stayed. At every opportunity, I encourage my colleagues to contribute to the Wikipedia. However the response so far has been anemic. One of my colleagues has written that he doesn't want to put the work into contributing if it would increase the "brouhaha".

It seems that exponential growth means that the Wikipedia must periodically reinvent itself.

For example, one of the issues that we are going to have to address is mob rule.

Regards,-- Carl Hewitt 03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by User:ems57fcva

Let me say in openning that this is a complex case to document, as it involves a pattern of conduct stretching over several months. Each incident builds up over time, so that there is no one day or event that makes the case against Carl Hewitt. Indeed, the individual incidents are not all that egregious. The trouble is the constant need to fight back against Carl and the same type of over-hyping of the actor model over and over and over again.

My evidence at this time is focussed on a set of events of 13-17 September 2005, and another of mid-October 2005. Alone, either set is not grounds for action, and together they represent a weak case at best. Instead, it is this evidence combined with the specifics cited by others the demonstrate an ongoing pattern of behavior that has led to this RfAr.

Note: All dates/times are UTC. -- EMS | Talk 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

13 September 2005

14 September 2005

  • 22:13, 14 September 2005
    • Chris Hillman once again removes the category link. [14]

15 September 2005

  • 03:25, 15 September 2005
    • Chris Hillman once again removes the offending categories. Included is a request to talk this over. [16]

16 September 2005

17 September 2005

  • 17:11, 17 September 2005
    • Carl Hewitt places into the actor model artle a very odd statement reinforcing the his perceived connection between the actor model and modern theoretical physics. [22]
  • 22:17, 17 September 2005

Discussion of Events of 13-17 Septmeber 2005

Overall, what happenned is that Carl Hewitt wanted to categorize a software paradigm (the actor model) as a part of general relativity and quantum mechanics. This effort was beaten back by the general relativity editors. However, as this happenned, Carl Hewitt kept changing tactics. First he tried creating a subcategory. Then he tried to do a "renaming" by recreating the category under a new name! I attribute the duplication to his being a newbie instead of maliciousness. Even so, he is failing to deal with the real problem (a total disapproval of treating the actor model as a part of GR), and is constantly moving the offending categorization from one venue to another. The edits of 17 September seem to represent a frustrated "last hurrah" for his efforts to associate the actor model directly with general relativity.

The categories were deleted 22 & 23 September. By that time, Carl Hewitt had relented as the related discussion demonstrate. It was not as "clean" a process as I would have liked, for reasons that are not Carl Hewitt's fault. If this was all that there was to compain about, this action would not have been taken. Unfortunately, it is not.

17 October 2005

  • 20:10, 17 October 2005
    • My involvement with the quantum indeterminacy page starts at time. I have just learned that Carl Hewitt has been editting it and frustrating the other editors seeking to improve it. I found it in this state: [24]. The problem is that this is not a discussion of quntum indeterminacy, but instead a diatribe against the underpinnings of quantum mechanics and a rehashing of Einstein's case for hidden variables. Only the section "Single particle indeterminacy" [25] is relevant to the topic of quantum indeterminacy itself.
    • After reviewing the edit history, I found that even at the start of his edits to this page back on July 6, Carl Hewitt was making inappropriate edits. In his first edit of this page [26], he added a section linking quantum indeterminacy to the actor model. Surprised?
    • My response (from the edit history) is "MAJOR REVERT to version of 6/23/05 by Havermayer" [27]
    • A thread discussing this action is also initiated on the talk page ( Talk:Quantum_indeterminacy#Major_revert).
  • Events up to 23:06, 17 October 2005 (from the edit history [28], [29]) No version comparisons are provided, as it is obvious what is happenning at each event.
    • 20:15, 17 October 2005 CarlHewitt (Reverted reversion by User:Ems57fcva: don't just revert an article which is being revised; instead join the discussion!)
    • 20:26, 17 October 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv, agreeing with EMS)
    • 20:40, 17 October 2005 CarlHewitt (Reverted so that the issues can be discussed. Could someone please put this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment)
    • 20:47, 17 October 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to EMS as before)
    • 21:28, 17 October 2005 CarlHewitt (Reverted so that the issues can be discussed. Could someone please put this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment)
    • 21:42, 17 October 2005 Ems57fcva (rv to prev ver by William Connelly. To Carl Hewitt: Remember the 3RR. You cannot revert again today under it.)
    • 21:42, 17 October 2005 Appleboy m (Reverted edits by Ems57fcva to last version by CarlHewitt)
    • 21:57, 17 October 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv apparently motiveless rv by Appleboy back to EMS. My last for the day...)
    • 22:17, 17 October 2005 CarlHewitt (reverted to restore references added that were suppressed by last reversion to ancient history)
    • 23:06, 17 October 2005 CSTAR (Reverting to previous version by William Connolley)

18 October 2005

Evidence presented by User:R.Koot

16 June - 17 June

User:CarlHewitt makes his first edit to Wikipedia [31]. This is tagged as a copyright violation [32] by User:Cryptic, but later restored [33] by User:67.180.227.35. Carl Hewitt leaves an explanation, that he hold the copyright on this text on the talk page [34] and on Cryptic's talk page [35].

User:67.180.227.35 edits the article on the Planner programming language [36], but User:RickK nominates it for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PLANNER). Carl Hewitt expands the article. [37] User:Macrakis tempers Carl's POV somewhat [38]

Carl Hewitt makes this edit [39] to SHRDLU. This is a subtle perverwsion of history. See for example, Terry Winograd's homepage and this quote from Artifical Intelligence: A Modern Approach

After the development of resolution, work on first-order inference proceeded in several directions. In AI, resolution was adopted for question-answering systems by Cordell Green and Bertram Raphael (1968). A somewhat less formal approach was taken by Carl Hewitt (1969). His Planner language, although never fully implemented, was a precursor to logic programming and included directives for forward and backkward chaining and for negation as failure. A subset known as Micro-Planner (Sussman and Winograd, 1970) was implemented ans used in the SHRDLU natural language understanding system ( Winograd, 1972). Early AI implementations put a good deal of effort into datastructures that would allow efficient retreival of facts; this work is covered in AI programming texts (Charniak et al., 1987; Norvig, 1992; Forbus and de Kleer, 1993).

and

As mentioned earlier, backward chaining for logical inference apeared in Hewitt's Planner language (1969). Logic programming per se evolved independently of this effort. ...

Carl Hewitt adds some self-promotion to Lisp programming language [40] and Prolog [41].

Carl Hewitt adds some inappropriate links on articles related to philosophy [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. A question about this is raised on his talk page [50].

18 June - 4 July

Carl Hewitt makes some further adjustmenst to the Planner programming language article [51]. Especially note the section (emphasis added)

Kowalski's thesis was that computation could be subsumed by deduction and quoted with approval "Computation is controlled deduction." which he attributed to Pat Hayes. Contrary to Kowalski and Hayes, Hewitt's thesis was that logical deduction was incapable of carrying out concurrent computation in open systems. He argued that a mathematical model of Actors did not necessarily determine particular concurrent computations. The Actor model is exactly analogous to physics: Quantum theory does not necessarily determine particular physical processes. E.g., in the double-slit experiment, Quantum theory specificcallly does not determine where a particular particle lands on the screen regardless of how tightly the input of the particle is controlled. Indeed, according to the standard interpretation of Quantum theory, it is impossible to determine ahead of time where a particular particle will land. Indeterminacy carries over into concurrent computation because of arbitation in the implementation of Actor systems. However, Hewitt's thesis is still controversial and the subject of current research.

Carl Hewitt continues to push his Scientific Community Metaphor [52] [53] and himself and Planner [54] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [55]) [56] [57] [58] [59] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [60]) [61] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [62])

Carl Hewitt stated working on the Actor model article [63].

Carl added a link to the Planner programming language to the model theory article [64], which was reverted by User:Josh Cherry stating self-promoting as the reason. [65]

5 July - 24 August

Blissex and User:Koffieyahoo point out several inaccuracies and POV problems in Actor model. A full record can be found on the talk page Talk:Actor model (I consider this to be one of the most important pieces of evidence). Changes made to this article by these users are often reverted (without an adequate explanation on the talk page). ( [66]| [67]) ( [68]| [69]) ( [70]| [71]) ( [72]| [73]) The end result is that both User:Koffieyahoo and Blissex have stopped contributing to Wikipedia [74] [75], that the actor model article is still in a poor state (inconsistent with published literature, speculative [76]) and that it has been split into several articles ( Actor model implementation, Actor model and process calculi, Actor model theory, Actor model early history) which is not helpful in providing a neutral picture.

There is also a strage edit where Carl removes or replaces links (with inaccesible pages) to online versions of the references cited. [77]

Carl continues pushing his actor model [78] [79] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [80]) [81] (reverted by User:Josh Cherry [82]) [83] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [84]; reinsert by User:CarlHewitt [85]) [86] (clarified by User:Koffieyahoo [87]) [88] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [89]) [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

Especially annoying are those in physics articles [98] (reverted by User:CSTAR), the dubious (don't -> usually?) [99] (see Talk:Uncertainty_principle#Indeterminacy in computation and Talk:Uncertainty_principle#Reply).

Carl also has interesting views on certain topics, which would require some further elaboration if we want to keep them included in Wikipedia [100] [101] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [102], reinserted by User:CarlHewitt [103]) [104] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [105]) [106] (reverted by User:Koffieyahoo [107], reinserted by User:CarlHewitt [108]). See Talk:X86/Archives/2011#Prospects for the x86 for some "discussion".

<cap> <cat [109]> <sep Talk:Actor_model_early_history> < continuation>

25 August - 12 September

8 October - ?

<quantum indeterminacy>

Evidence presented by Linas

Summary: Evidence is presented that Carl Hewitt has driven at least two editors, namely User:CSTAR and User:R.Koot to leave WP. Also, my personal low point in dealing with Carl, and a short list of other contentious arguments that haven't yet been mentioned in other evidentiary sections.

Departure of User:CSTAR
  • 21:07 27 November 2005 User:CSTAR defends an attack by Shebs on Koot, and defends an attack on his own credentials. [113] (I have no link to the attacks that provoked this response at this time. It is possible that these may be on the deleted User talk:CSTAR page.) Stan's actions provoke commentary and a rebuke from me. [114]
  • 5 December 2005 User:CSTAR confirms, by personal communication, that conflict with Carl Hewitt is the primary reason for leaving WP. Although unstated, I believe that the unexpected appearance and commentary from Stan Shebs was the "final straw" that lead to CSTAR's departure. Others confirm similar communications: [117]
Departure of User:R.Koot
  • 11 December 2005 User:R.Koot requests that his user and talk page be blanked speedy. This is done, but results in discussion on AN. [118] [119]
  • 12:40, 11 December 2005 User:R.Koot returns long enough to announce departure, and state that the reason for departure is this RfA. [120]
Personal low point
  • 12:42 16 September 2005: After watching some of the previous controversy, I attempt to ascertain on my own whether Hewitt is "legit" or "a crank". My methodology is a simple booby trap: sling some jargon that true authorities would be able to respond to, but would be lost on cranks. [121]
  • 01:06 17 September 2005: Hewitt replies, clearly didn't understand a word: [122]
  • 15:38 17 September 2005: Based on Hewitt's failure on this sniff test, I label the whole thing as pseudoscience: [123]
  • 16:00 17 September 2005: An agreeable response... [124]
  • 17 September 2005: But I am then censured for having been unfair/uncivil to Carl: [125] (I notice that all those complaining about my harshness are now joined in party against Carl in this RfA).
Misleading edit summaries
  • 22 December 2005: Reorganizes the "workshop" section of this arbitration, claiming that I suggested such a re-organization. I made no such suggestion. [126] [127]
Other disputes

Rather than further enlarging this page, I'd like to only breifly mention addtional controversies, wherein a variety of parties (and notably User:CSTAR) are engaged against Hewitt:

Comment by CH

An extended comment on this RfAr can be found here. Hope it's OK to mention this, since I don't understand what User:Chalst did with the original. CSTAR told me the same thing he told Linas and EMS: Carl Hewitt is the primary cause of his departure.--- CH 09:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Jitse Niesen

This case revolves in my opinion around the following key principles:

  • Neutral point of view: CarlHewitt is pushing the Actor model and other research of his and his coworkers'. Unfortunately, it is not easy to prove that something is not NPOV.
  • Editors should try to achieve consensus; this implies that they should be willing to compromise. I could not find an eminently quotable policy on this one, but I do think that such a principle exist. For instance, Wikipedia:Consensus starts by saying "Wikipedia works by building consensus".
  • Collegiality. In particular, questions, and the people asking them, should be taken seriously and not be answered in a dismissive or a evasive manner, or by asking a counterquestion. This is partially covered by Wikipedia:Civility, but that policy focuses on more flagrant examples of uncivility.
  • Ownership of articles: CarlHewitt is overly protective of his articles.

I found it extremely hard to summarize the case as it spreads out over several months in which CarlHewitt has made thousands of edits (though his edit count is inflated as he often follows a major edit with dozens of minor edits fixing spelling or formatting). There is no smoking gun, no obviously bad behaviour of CarlHewitt's part; rather, it is a long series of annoyances that add up to make the experience of working with CarlHewitt extremely frustrating (this is also discussed in the evidence presented by EMS). Unfortunately, this means that a lot of evidence has to be presented, and I apologize to the arbitrators for having to read through all of it.

I chose to present the evidence in two parts. In the first section, I take one article ( denotational semantics) and give an account of most of the events relating to this article; this has the advantage that the reader can see the context. The disadvantage is that it is a lot of work to read it (not to mention writing it), so in the next section, I present some diffs to illustrate the principles that I listed at the top.

Denotational semantics

This section discusses the events surrounding denotational semantics (which I'll abbreviate as "den.sem.") and the associated talk page.

  • 22 Aug 16:02, Den.sem.: CarlHewitt adds the PhD thesis by Will Clinger (a student of his) to the references section.

September

  • 5 Sep 06:53 – 6 Sep 07:27, Den.sem. (158 edits [1]): CarlHewitt adds a large section Denotational semantics of concurrency which consists largely of big quotes from Clinger's thesis. As a consequence, Christopher Strachey and Dana Scott (according to our articles the founders of the field) are relegated to the bottom of the article.
  • 6 Sep 10:05, Talk:Den.sem.: Koffieyahoo says on the talk page that "some of the remarks added to the article regarding denotation semantics and concurrency are in correct. The article suggest atm that denotational semantics is inherently non-concurrent. However, this is not the case." Koffieyahoo refers to a chapter by Ong to back him up.
  • 6 Sep 10:09, Talk:Den.sem.: Koffieyahoo adds that "The article also seems to have been retargeted with a focus on the Actor model, which seems completely unjustified given the wide spread use of denotational semantic through out computer science."
  • 6 Sep 16:08, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt answers "Can you cite any errors in the article?" I don't understand this answer as did is exactly what KoffieYahoo did.
  • 7 Sep 07:47, Talk:Den.sem.: Koffieyahoo clarifies what he sees as the problem, referring to a specific sentence in Denotational semantics.
  • 7 Sep 21:29, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt replies that Ong is not an original source. This seems clearly irrelevant to me and only serves to avoid the question.
  • 9 Sep 10:34, Talk:Den.sem.: Koffieyahoo replies "Ong gives [a]n overview. Overviews are an integral part of science […] Didn't respond wrt the errors I pointed out. Please do so (Learn to respond to all arguments. Do proceed to practice this selective responding. It's very annoying. Moreover, learn to respond to the point.)."
  • 9 Sep 14:25, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt reacts "Not to detract from Ong's work, it is not an original source."
  • 9 Sep 15:47, Den.sem.: CarlHewitt moves two subsections to the new article Unbounded nondeterminism.
  • 9 Sep 19:20 – 12 Sep 05:34 Den.sem. (12 edits): CarlHewitt indents the parts that are quotes from Clinger's thesis and makes some other small changes.
  • 12 Sep 07:27, Den.sem.: User:64.80.151.253 (probably Carl himself) adds another quote from Clinger's thesis.
  • 12 Sep 14:45, Talk:Den.sem.: Koffieyahoo says "Sigh, I don't see why I'm not allowed to cite an overview articles. Particular one that provides you with all the relevant references. Ong cites at least 50 relevant references which I'm not going to repeat here. Moreover, overview or not, this is completely irrevant considering the remarks. So, can you now please answer my questions and remarks." Six minutes later, Koffieyahoo makes one further contribution to Wikipedia, and he has not contributed since ( Koffieyahoo's contributions).
  • 12 Sep 16:23, Talk:Den.sem.: TuukkaH says "Overview articles are important references for Wikipedia", referring to WP:NOR.
  • 12 Sep 16:45, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt agrees "You can cite overview articles. I was simply pointing out that they are not original sources." It seems that this is not how Koffieyahoo saw it.
  • 13 Sep 07:38, Den.sem.: CarlHewitt adds another quote from Clinger's thesis.
  • 15 Sep 09:21, Den.sem.: CarlHewitt adds yet another quote from Clinger's thesis.
  • 19 Sep 11:58, Den.sem.: Jpbowen adds a sentence to the top mentioning Scott and Strachey.

There is now a break for over a month, in which not much happens.

November

  • 10 Nov 06:44, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR writes "Besides evading many of Koffieyahoo's points, I would also point out that the article completely ignores the contributions of J. de Bakker and his collaborators on the denotational semantics of concurrency."
  • 10 Nov 07:33, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt asks "Is any of de Bakker's work on denotational semantics?"
  • 10 Nov 17:06, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR answers affirmatively, giving some references.
  • 11 Nov 13:20, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt remarks "Samson Abramsky has also done some work in this area." Is he trying to evade CSTAR's point?
  • 11 Nov 17:33, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR says that "the article is deficient in references, in coverage of the material and in clarity. In particular, I don't think you're use of extensive direct quotes is helpful."
  • 11 Nov 18:57, Talk:Den.sem.: Charles Matthews chimes in, stating that he "studied with Abramsky for a couple of years at Imperial in the early 1990s. The article has a slanted POV."
  • 11 Nov 21:24, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR elaborates "Aside from the intro gives a completely distorted view of denotational semantics. It should at least begin with denotational models for the lambda calculus and relate this to work of Dana Scott and Chris Strachey."
  • 13 Nov 16:35, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR complains "One major defect of the article is this: It never mentions the basic point of denotational semantics, which is to associate meaning to expressions satisfying in a compositional way."
  • 14 Nov 18:43. Den.sem.: In response, CarlHewitt writes a section titled Compositionality, again stressing the Actor model.
  • 17 Nov 21:05, Talk:Den.sem.: Chalst enters the discussion. "Although CH [2] started with an article that was not in very good shape, the article as it now stands is so imbalanced that I think WP is worse off than it was. [… Clinger] is not remotely a current authority on the subject […] In defence of CH, he is not a semanticist, and is documenting what he knows about. But the defence is rather weak when seen in the context of CH's pattern of editing elsewhere: the article is being used inappropriately to push the actor model, at the expense of balanced coverage of the topic at hand."
  • 21 Nov 10:13, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt replies to CSTAR's complaint (13 Nov 16:35): "I have written a section on compositonality that treats it from a modern point of view. See what you think. You should be aware that some of the classical treatments of compositonality in the text books have severe limitations, e.g., they do not handle delayed evaluation."
  • 21 Nov 10:33, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt responds to Chalst's comment that Clinger is not a current authority that "his dissertation is still a classic work on the subject. It is widely know by researchers in the field. Recent work builds on it and will be published soon." Refering to soon-to-be-published papers is tactic that Carl employs regularly; further down, he says "There will be additional publications on denotational semantics this summer which will require the article to be revised in any case."
  • 21 Nov 16:50, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR answers to CarlHewitt's 10:13 reply: "Your new section is not an improvement. […] Saying this treats this from a "modern point of view" is your opinion, which I doubt is widely shared."
  • 21 Nov 18:47, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt replies: "That the Actor model approach to compositionality is a modern point of view is not just my opinion. See the references in Actor model." The list of references contains about 100 items long, so just pointing to them is not very useful, but CarlHewitt does not seem to realize this. CarlHewitt's replies continues "The reason that the Actor approach has become the modern point of view is that other approaches have run into trouble, e.g. with delayed evaluation."
  • 21 Nov 19:03, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR reacts "Baloney. See for example work of Mitch Wand and coworkers,"
  • A technical discussion on whether other approaches can define semantics for delayed evaluation follows.
  • 22 Nov 01:22, Talk:Den.sem.: Trying to close the discussion, CarlHewitt says "I suppose that you [that is, CSTAR] have realized by now that there is no good way using the old text books and papers to write down the denotational semantics of true delayed evaluation (i.e. the version without the strange hack in Scheme). This is one reason that modern treatments of compostional denotational semantics use the Actor model."
  • 22 Nov 02:42, Talk:Den.sem.: CSTAR reacts "Re: I suppose that you have realized by now... I'm sorry I don't believe anything of what you've said. You dismiss both Steele and Sussman as hackers, suggesting their approach was strange. Presumptuous to say the least." The names refer to Guy L. Steele, Jr. and Gerald Jay Sussman.
  • 24 Nov 06:56, Talk:Den.sem.: CarlHewitt apologies for his 22 Nov 01:22 remark, and also for an earlier remark in which he said that CSTAR does not "quite understand the problem here. Denotational semantics is supposed to be a mathematical model theory."

As a result of CarlHewitt's edits, the article denotational semantics currently gives a highly skewed treatment of the field, doing little justice any researchers not associated with Carl Hewitt. Three quarters of the article is about the actor model.

Other evidence

This section lists examples of what I view as CarlHewitt's uncollegial attitude and the reactions of other editors to CarlHewitt's actions.

CarlHewitt evades questions
  • 13 July 12:56, User talk:Carl Hewitt: Koffieyahoo complains "You aren't answering the questions you're just re-iterating your view on things and that's not an answer".
  • 15 July 13:02, User talk:Carl Hewitt: Koffieyahoo says "Once again, unfortunately, I'd like to ask you to react to my questions and comments on the talk pages of the following topics"
  • 20 July 10:45, User talk:Carl Hewitt: Koffieyahoo writes "From my perspective you have either not answered or only gave evasive answers wrt my questions and comments."
  • 19 Oct 13:20, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics: User:Linas (who has also presented evidence) states that his "frustration with Hewitt is that he makes assertions and then persistently dodges questions and criticisms."
CarlHewitt answers a question by giving an unhelpful reference
  • 15 Jul 16:51, Talk:Actor model: When a user signing with "Blissex" asks "what kind of read/write thing is present in the lambda calculus...", CarlHewitt answers in condescending manner: "Read Church's paper" (that is his full answer).
  • 19 Oct 04:39, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics: In reaction to a comment by Ems57fcva that he does not see any connection between the actor model and quantum physics, CarlHewitt writes "You might try reading Computers without Clocks by Ivan Sutherland and Jo Ebergen to gain some intution. Then ask the following question: In terms of quantum physics, how does an arbiter work?". This answer is useless (see the remainder of the discussion), but I find it again very condescending.
  • 21 Nov 18:47, Talk:Denotational semantics [4]: CarlHewitt writes: "That the Actor model approach to compositionality is a modern point of view is not just my opinion. See the references in Actor model." Anybody wishing to verify this statement will be stymied by the fact that the list of references is about 100 items long.
CarlHewitt answers a question with another question instead of offering an answer
  • 6 July 16:24, Talk:Actor model: In reaction Koffieyahoo's remark that while reading the article, he got "the distinct impression that comparisions are trying to show that the actor model is best," Carl Hewitt asks "For what purpose do you think that the article argues that the Actor model is best?"
  • 9 Oct 02:34, Talk:Quantum indeterminacy [3]: In response to a comment by CSTAR that Fuchs' views are too idiosyncratic to rely on, CarlHewitt writes "I agree that Fuchs is not the only view and that the treatment in the introduction should bring out the underlying controversies. Can you see how to do this?"
  • 19 Oct 05:24, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics: CSTAR implores CarlHewitt "to rely on a more "progressive" dialogue strategy. Please try not to respond to questions with questions". CSTAR also says that CarlHewitt's answer at 19 Oct 04:34, mentioned in the previous paragraph, is not helpful.
CarlHewitt answers a question by referring to publications that will soon appear
  • 31 Oct 03:56, Talk:Scientific Community Metaphor: CarlHewitt says that "we can expect many more publications in the coming years. Of course there is a delay between when work is done and it is published in the literature."
  • 21 Nov 10:33, Talk:Denotational semantics [4]: CarlHewitt writes "Recent work builds on it and will be published soon. […] There will be additional publications on denotational semantics this summer which will require the article to be revised in any case."
CarlHewitt is pushing his own work
CarlHewitt's assumption of ownership
CarlHewitt claims that something is controversial while he's the only one arguing for a particular PoV
  • 17 Oct 22:10, Talk:Quantum indeterminacy [3]: CarlHewitt says "This article has proven to be extremely controversial in practice (although there has been a claim that the subject matter of the article may not be controversial)."
  • 27 Nov 05:34, Talk:Model (abstract): CarlHewitt undoes a revert and explains on the talk page "The section now discusses the controversy in contrast to the previous version which violated NPOV because it didn't discuss the controversy" (the alleged controversy is whether there are abstract models that are not mathematical). However, as the ensuing discussion shows, he has no evidence that there is such a controversy, even though CSTAR asks him at 06:03, 06:12, 07:37, 15:20, and 16:12.

Concluding remarks

CarlHewitt is clearly an expert on the actor model, and as such, he could prove very useful for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, most (if not all) editors that have interacted with him over some time, have felt considerable frustrations because of it, leading some to leave Wikipedia alltogether. An ideal conclusion of this case would allow Wikipedia to profit from CarlHewitt's expertise without his poisoning the community (the latter has of course a negative effect on Wikipedia).

Notes

  1. CarlHewitt often makes many edits in succession. For the convenience of the reader, I decided to group all edits together in one diff when they are made consecutively without any other editor intervening.
  2. Here, "CH" refers to User:CarlHewitt, and not to User:Hillman (Chris Hillman) who also presented evidence and signs his posts with "CH".
  3. The conflict surrounding Quantum indeterminacy is treated in more detail in the evidence presented by EMS.
  4. This diff also appears in the section #Denotational semantics.

Evidence presented by Allan McInnes

My initial interactions with Carl Hewitt arose from following links that he had inserted into articles about process calculi. We have since “sparred” (that seems the only appropriate term) on a number of occassions over the quality and quantity of information that Carl puts into his articles. Our interactions have not all been negative: I have worked hard to improve the structure and quality of the articles in question, both through suggesting changes, and by making changes myself [129], and I believe that Carl appreciates at least some of this work (see [130]).

My principal concern is that Carl seems to be attempting to subvert the Wikipedia to push his POV on his theory of concurrency (the Actor model) and to promote that theory. This subversion takes subtle forms:

  • Articles are revised to overly emphasize the Actor model, often at the expense of the nominal subject of the article (e.g. [131], [132], [133])
  • Carl generally presents only his view of a “controversy” (a term he often seems to use as a description of different choices made by different theories, often with different goals in mind), usually in great detail (and usually gives himself the last word) (e.g. [134], [135], [136], [137]).
    • Where comparisons are drawn with other theories they often refer to out-of-date versions, some over 20 years old, without making it clear that more modern theories with the same name exist (for example, [138], or compare Carl's original text [139] with the version to which I added some more up-to-date information [140])
    • Information about more modern theories is removed or reduced (e.g. [141], [142]), while up-to-date (and even as yet unpublished [143]) versions of his own theory are presented (e.g. [144], [145] - note that the latter is explicitly noted as being the subject of current research)
    • Despite his contention that “It is important to distinguish between the abtract Actor model mathematical theory and various uses and implementations” [146], Carl insists on conflating theory and implementation when discussing competing theories (e.g. [147], [148]).
  • Subtle choices of wording and presentation imply that Carl's Actor model is “better” than other competing theories (e.g. [149], [150], [151])
  • Correct information is deleted if it contradicts Carl's prejudices (e.g. [152] - note that a reading of Cardelli's original paper on mobile ambients makes it clear that the ambient calculus does not use channels for communications [although it can model them])
  • Tenuous connections are drawn with other technologies that, while not obviously related to the Actor model (and often following a contradictory philosophy [153]), are currently popular [154]. References describing these connections are not provided, despite repeated requests [155].

Carl is generally unwilling to take part in any significant discussion on these issues. When questioned he tends to give evasive answers, or avoid answering the question altogether (see Talk:Process calculi, Talk:Actor model and process calculi, Talk:Actor model for examples).

The specific chronological evidence that I would like to present revolves around the Actor model and process calculi article, since that is where Carl and I have had the most significant interaction. It is just one instance of a larger pattern that I have observed in Carl's behavior on Wikipedia. There are a number of other articles that I have concerns about from a POV perspective, but have not had the time or energy to tackle as yet. Other articles about which I have concerns are covered in the evidence given by others on this page.

Actor model and process calculi

  • 2005-12-07 10:27:32 -- I begin work on the article, editing the leader to provide a more neutral POV [157]
  • 2005-12-07 10:45:40 -- I place a couple of comments on the discussion page asking about a rewrite to further improve the neutrality of the POV. [158],

[159]

  • 2005-12-07 15:48:46 -- Carl responds somewhat evasively [160]
  • 2005-12-07 17:14:32 -- Trying to take Carl's evasion seriously, I suggest some ways that the article might be tigtened up to provide room for the discussions that would allow a more neutral POV. [161]
  • 2005-12-07 18:53:38 -- Carl again evades the question, and instead makes claims about the nature of Wikipedia articles in general (but does not directly object to the suggested changes) [162]
  • 2005-12-09 03:19:38 -- The discussion terminates relatively amicably, with an agreement to trim the reference list, and no arguments against the other suggested changes [163]
  • 2005-12-15 12:37:48 -- I undertake a near-complete rewrite of the article to improve the neutrality of the POV, remove irrelevant detail, and add direct references on matters of opinion [164]
  • 2005-12-15 12:49:09 -- Carl objects to the rewrite on the discussion page, claiming the revisions are too major for change without discussion [165]. More discussion ensues (and I point out that the changes I have made were already discussed) [166]
  • 2005-12-15 15:35:26 -- Carl reverts my rewrite [167]
  • 2005-12-16 17:55:23 -- I again attempt to moderate the viewpoint of the article and trim down excessive references, this time working within the existing structure of the article [168]
  • 2005-12-17 20:22:59 - 2005-12-19 23:46:29 -- Carl makes some 150+ edits, in the process reverting my attempts at moderating the POV, adding even greater amounts of irrelevant detail, and removing or minimizing information that conflicts with his POV [169]

Article creation to support RfAr arguments

On January 1 2006 Carl Hewitt created the article Allan McInnes. This article obviously doesn't meet the criteria for the inclusion of biographical articles. I did not ask for this article to be created. Carl's motivation for the creation of this article is not immediately obvious, but it appears to have been created purely to provide support for arguments that are part of this Request for Arbitration [170]. The article was subsequently deleted [171], and became the subject of a (now closed) deletion review [172] as a result of its relevance to this RfAr.

Actually I created the article because I (mistakenly it turned out) thought that it was appropriate because you had published an article and I wanted to be able to refer to the author in the future. When someone kindly provided a link for where the criteria for article creation about academics are written down, I immediately said that it was OK by me to delete the article. Unfortunately, by that time I had referred to you as Allan McInnes instead of User:Allan McInnes in this proceeding. So it was decided to hold the stub over until this proceeding has concluded. (I don't know what they are going to do about the archive of this proceeding.) -- Carl Hewitt 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The article will be deleted when the arbitration ends, unless any argument is made for its continued inclusion. I requested a temporary undeletion on WP:VFD for the duration of this case, not because I think that much hinges on the example, but to ensure that no one feels that evidence is being hidden. --- --- Charles Stewart (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Koffie Yahoo

Since I'm mentioned a few times I think I should at least explain my lack of contributions over the past few months. Don't know if this really counts as evidence, but seems important here. (I made similar statements to CSTAR in private.)

My lack of contributions is three-fold:

  • In September/October I was finshing up my PhD dissertation, which, as you might all imagine, takes up at lot of time.
  • 'Discussions' with Carl Hewitt were taking up a lot of time, due to his mode of discussing thing. Hence, disrupting my PhD work.
  • In October/November/December I was on vacation with only limited Internet access available.

I also mentioned to CSTAR that I still think it's best to try to argue with Carl Hewitt eventhough he is a master in evading answering my questions. I still hold this view.

Statement by Charles Stewart on the evidence presented by Jitse Niesen

I mostly agree with what Jitse Niesen has written in his evidence and wish to endorse it with some caveats.

The conflict I followed most closely, apart from the *fDs, was over the denotational semantics article. I think Jitse has done a generally excellent job of putting together his evidence, but there are a few issues where I think it is incomplete in a manner that has some risk of misleading, as well as some points where I can add something further (the following points are with respect to the den. semantics article):

  1. Ong, the authority whose survey was regarded as besides the point by Carl Hewitt, is one of the five originators of the modern approach to game semantics, which he argues gives new abstract mathematical structures for denotational semantics (there is some controversy over this matter, but the view is widely held in the field). He is unquestionably a key authority on the full abstraction problem, a central issue in denotational semantics. I should also disclose that he supervised my doctorate, which was not on denotational semantics or game semantics;
  2. Further to my statement of 17 Nov, I changed my mind about the value of Carl's contribution to the article, particularly in realtion to the question of unbounded nondeterminism, following an email discussion with Carl and his former PhD student Will Clinger (with whom I was already slightly acquanited). I did not explain my change of mind on the talk page (for which I apologised at the time to CSTAR), but I did retract my opinion that the existing content should be scrapped and the article started fresh.
  3. My current opinion about the article is that while Carl's edits profoundly unbalanced the article, he also grew the article in directions that were beyond my expertise, and I think that the article would, given more cooperative editing, have become a stronger article as a result.
  4. I never fully got to the bottom of what Carl and CSTAR were arguing about with respect to the issue of compositionality in denotational semantics, a topic I understand very well. That suggests to me that neither of them were arguing clearly from a well-seasoned perspective on the topic, a proposition that would about either party be surprising to me. It appeared to turn on an obscure-to-me turf battle on the value of the Sussman-Steele interpretation of continuation semantics, an interesting question to me but one whose relevance to the point at hand was not clear;
  5. Robin Milner is probably the second most weightiest living figure it is possible to cite in theoretical computer science (after Dana Scott). Milner's interest in the actor model should carry weight.

In addition, I'd like to draw attention to the evidence above of repeated conflict that arose from other editors dissatisfaction with Carl's approach to citation, which I think will be very important in the Workshop phase. --- Charles Stewart 11:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Evidence&oldid=743233877"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE