Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome[edit]

That Newman Luke stop making unilateral massive changes to articles, article forks, redirects, redundant articles, and the like without first discussing his ideas on the article talk pages. If that fails, a topic ban on Judaism related topics.

Description[edit]

User:Newman Luke has, over a period of months, been engaged in a process of making significant changes to Judaism-related articles against the consensus of almost all members of WikiProject Judaism, creating unnecessary forks and redirects, weaving what appears to be personal opinion or theories throughout articles that are not supported by the sources brought, using an outdated and possibly biased source when other public-domain and much more authoritative and normative sources exist, and overall continuing to edit in a way that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism related topics despite repeated pleas to use article and project talk pages to discuss major changes to relatively stable articles. Furthermore, Newman exhibits an aggressive "ownership" stance, both in regard to the articles he re-writes, and by attacking those people who try to fix, correct, redirect, or re-write the articles to remove the inaccuracies and possibly misleading statements he adds.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Shiddukhin Article redundant and inferior to the existing Shidduch
  2. Marriage in the Bible Redundant and inferior to Jewish views on marriage. No attempt was made to discuss non-Jewish biblical marriage.
  3. Recreation of article that was deleted after an AfD
  4. Creating an editnotice specifically to attack a user that had to be deleted via MfD
  5. Forum shopping Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive82#Debresser & Avraham (& me)
  6. In general, one can look at his past 5000 edits and see how they have consistently been deemed inappropriate by other wikipedians, and yet he ignores consensus and requests for discussions and continues to edit unilaterally
  7. Repeatedly reverted a merge that was made as the outcome of an Afd discussion [1], [2]. Same here [3], [4].

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:NOR
  3. WP:NPOV
  4. WP:CONSENSUS
  5. WP:SYNTH

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. 16:46, September 28, 2008
  2. November 10, 2009
  3. November 30, 2009
  4. February 16, 2010
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#User:Newman_Luke
  6. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Newman_Luke
  7. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Takkanot_Shum&action=historysubmit&diff=344407897&oldid=337371840
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiddukhin&diff=prev&oldid=344403549
  3. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Avraham as a response to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Newman_Luke
  4. Needed to be brought back to ANI again today
  5. Disregarding the consensus at an AfD by restoring the article MULTIPLE times, yet again today.
There are plenty of other examples, these are just representative

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Avi (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Newman's suggestion that I am "retaliating", I had suggested an RfC on Newman on both February 15, 2010 and February 17, 2010. Being that Newman did not create his pages until February 24, 2010, it is rather clear who was "retaliating" against whom. -- Avi (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded to Ben Aveling on his talk page. -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Note quite sure why Newman Luke doesn't get it, i.e. that he cannot wage a one man war against every last editor based at WP:JUDAISM whenever he bumps into them provoking edit wars wherever he shows up, because of "I don't like them" to swing all of Judaism-related articles in his favor on Wikipedia. I have tried to avoid direct conflicts with him, and in the past I tried to engage him in dialogues on TALK pages, but he always manages to misconstrue and twist the discussions. I cannot imagine why he wishes to stir up my hornets nest. He has been compiling an attack page "against me" at User:Newman Luke/Zq without notifying me. This violates Wikipedia:Attack page (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq) and is typical of his obsessive (for lack of a better word) ongoing violations of WP:NPA; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and of Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man that he really should read up on. Cool it Newman Luke. IZAK (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Collect (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've now done appropriate diligence. This summary is accurate, without endorsement of the actions of the "other" side, which I may comment on. Hipocrite (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yossiea (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Looked things over, and this seems correct. AniMate 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. Also note that he appears to say (in an AfD he brought recently) that one can cite on the history page. Does not have the background (based on some strange conclusions of his) to always understand his sources. See, for example, [[5]] (all edits to this date are his). His understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which he mixes up) are the only possible interpretations. I wish to note that I learned of this only by visiting the NL's User Page, and have held no discussions outside Wikipedia. I am not a member of any project. Mzk1 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Angryapathy (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not only do I endorse this, but I would go even further as banning him completely. He has demonstrated that he cannot co-edit within this community disregarding normal pleas of resolution a must in a community like WP. There is no reason why good valuable editors should be busy days with him instead of good constructive edits. Just for the resources he costs the project he should be banned, no not as a punishment but to free up resources.--Shmaltz (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Diffs appear to support summary. Not behavior that is helpful to the project -- one way or another, it should be stopped so as not to interfere with the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised outcome request by certifying party Avi[edit]

After Newman Luke has opened a RfAr on this because his attempts at other RfC's and forum shoppings have failed, he indicates he cannot edit collegially and in accord with wikipedia policies and will continue to edit war. As such, I sadly believe that nothing outside of a topic ban will protect the project's integrity.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Avi (talk)
  2. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IZAK (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Shmaltz (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 173.54.195.88 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 05:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I do not think that anything with loopholes will work, as the editor is quite fanatic about his own interpretation of the rules and also goes beyond what his sources say, when he is not simply misreading them.Mzk1 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sadly, the most recent edits suggest Mzk1 is correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by certifying party IZAK[edit]

  1. At this point in time, being two weeks prior to Passover (Passover this year is from March 30th to April 6th 2010), Judaic editors will not have time to enter into lengthy discussions, and it is ridiculous to concoct half-baked theories about a "Passover Plot" on Wikipedia by anyone at this time on the Jewish calendar.
  2. But it is incomprehensible, and a sheer flouting of Wikipedia's sense of orderliness, that User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) who is HIMSELF the subject of a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, being heavily censured there for his violations of various rules over an extended period of time certified by many users, should resort to such an outrageous request here at this time rather than dealing with the requests from multiple users for him to cooperate there, while
  3. Newman Luke has just been handed another serious setback when he attempted to post 3 counter RfCs against Users Avraham; Debresser; IZAK at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK3 that were neither endorsed nor accepted by anyone and hence deleted after 48 hours and he had in fact posted them prior for a week longer at User:Newman Luke/AV; User:Newman Luke/dDb; User:Newman Luke/Zq subsequently also deleted, that in itself should mean that he has no grounds to request the ArbCom to take up the battle for him instead against the three users he is so determined to wage battle against.
  4. Personally, a careful perusal of whatever Newman Luke has said about me, is taken from TALK pages where I have repeatedly and quite clearly tried to engage him in serious and respectful dialogue to reach some common ground, but alas it has been to no avail because he just takes words meant in the full spirit WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and twists them around and throws them back at me because of his own WP:POV and because he dislikes what he assumes to be the "religious beliefs and views" of other users, a violation of WP:LIKE.
  5. All past ArbCom cases filed against me in the past over my long career on Wikipedia, now over seven years, have been fully resolved years ago and have no bearing on my relationship with Newman Luke.
  6. It is ridiculous that Newman Luke expects anyone to go about treating original Biblical sources in the Hebrew Bible, that are easily and legitimately classed as WP:VERIFY, the keys and premises of both Christianity and Judaism, as being "insufficient" in Judaism-related (or for that matter Christianity-related) articles, as if he is now going to tell the world what Judaism is or is not and expect other learned editors to take that seriously. All Judaism articles are open and contain content from various streams of Judaism and I have never interfered with that, nor have I ever been accused of doing so by any editor in any ARTICLES whatsoever.
  7. Newman Luke is sure that he can dismantle the Bible itself by quoting a latter writer, while anyone who wishes to describe and explain how that is not possible according to both classical Judaism and Christianity is deserving of Newman Luke's censure and obvious ire as if he were the final "decisor" of what Judaism is or is not. This is all very silly and the height of absurdity. He expects people to "renounce" their personal beliefs (that he cannot know) while he clings and trumpets his beliefs and what he deems should be the "standards" that everyone must "adhere" to.
  8. What Newman Luke claims and expects of Judaism articles is not imposed on any other religious topics or its serious editors over the years dealing with other religions on Wikipedia. Articles about the Christian New Testament deal with it as a primary holy document for all Christians, and the New Testament is not there only to be attacked and disputed by latter day critics. There are ways and articles to accomplish that, but not the way that Newman Luke has been going about it. Wikipedia is not a religious seminary, it is an encyclopedia that seeks to accurately document all schools of thought and what the religions themselves have had to say for millennia and not what Newman Luke would impose on them himself in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NEO.
  9. Likewise, articles about Islam deal with the Koran as a primary holy document first and foremost for that religion and no one in their right mind would claim that on Wikipedia, that the New Testament or the Koran should not be cited as primary sources (in the HISTORICAL and RELIGIOUS senses) for describing and explaining how those religions function and what they have taught in and of themselves for thousands of years. Yet Newman Luke always wishes to overturn that principle when he enters in discussions or editorial sprees to overturn articles important to Judaism.
  10. Newman Luke is confusing sound Wikipedia policies that require verification for topics that have no or little known reliable basis per WP:RS or have yet to be written up, with the standard practices of HISTORY and RELIGION where there is a clear differentiation and preference given to primary sources/documents that are known and established almost universally, and are 100% valid for WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY purposes, in relation to secondary sources/documents of which there can be many varying and various ones, not all being the same WP:RS, that do not carry the same weight as primary sources in the historical, and this case, theological sense, in keeping within the parameters of sound and acceptable historiography in academia, standard theology, and reliable objective scientific research. In the case of Judaism, no rational person would argue that the Hebrew Bible does "not" qualify for WP:VERIFY or that it "cannot" be used as a primary source in the historical and religious sense for describing and explaining how Judaism derives, implements and practices its famous 613 commandments from the Torah, or how as the Old Testament it is the key to the beliefs and observances of Christianity, for that matter.
  11. I and other users have repeatedly urged Newman Luke to pursue the path of peace and WP:CONSENSUS and not the path of WP:WAR because peace is better than WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, yet he ignores that, always twists my words, and escalates the battles and takes the wars to the next level, as he is doing now, yet again, and he should be stopped.
  12. Thus, the ArbCom case should be dismissed and Newman Luke should be censured, as per User:Avraham's request in this RfC, for a permanent topic ban to be placed on Newman Luke's editing of ALL articles relating to Category:Jews and Judaism because of Newman Luke's constant violations of WP:WAR; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; WP:CONSENSUS; WP:AGF; WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA and most importantly WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. (P.S. I long ago advised Newman Luke to get to know WP:SPIDERMAN!) Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newman Luke's RfCs against other users in response to this RfC against him[edit]

During the course of this RfC, Newman Luke has seen fit to create RfC pages against three users he obviously dislikes, now at:

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham (formerly User:Newman Luke/AV, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV.)
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser (formerly User:Newman Luke/dDb, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb.)
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK3 (formerly User:Newman Luke/Zq, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq.)

User:Newman Luke is requested to cease and desist from such frivolous distractions and WP:DISRUPT at this time and concentrate his energies on replying to the serious problems he faces on this growing RfC page.

  • Agreed. Newman Luke must take himself in hand and stop the creation of attack pages against other users. IZAK (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree These are not attack pages, but legitimate Rfc's. And merging them into this one is not practical because of their size. I think each of the editors under scrutiny should write a response. In the mean time it is not a fact that anybody will endorse his Rfc's within the required 48 hours. Debresser (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Such is the privilege specifically accorded editors - to use userspace for such material. Suffuicient unto the day is the evil thereof - if he proposes actual RfCs, see what they result in then. Collect (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree per Debresser. He has the right to present the case, but as Desresser said, he needs someone else to agree. Otherwise, the RFC is taken down. Let the system run its course. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree per Debresser and Angryapathy. A properly formatted RFC is not an attack page, wheter anyone else endorses and certifies it or not, and a reasonsble time to perfect it in userspace is specifically allowed by WP:USER. Whether those RFCs will be certified and go forward is another question, but drafting them and presenting them is not an attack, nor disruption, nor incivility, nor a violation of any other policy or guideline as far as I can see. DES (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Script: Having run their course of 48 hours with no one seeing fit to endorse Newman Luke's three frivolous "RfCs" proposals have now been officially deleted. IZAK (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeman's request for arbitration[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WP:OWN_in_Judaism_articles. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request was declined today [6]. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The so-called evidence doesn't address a single one of the quoted applicable policies. The so-called attempts at dispute resolution have ignored every single request I've made for them to point out specific content they have an issue with. And from this post by Avraham, this RFC appears simply to be direct retaliation for my creation of a detailed log of their contraventions of policy:

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Newman Luke (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Hipocrite[edit]

I haven't spent a lot of time reviewing this, except it is patently obvious that a user who is so frequently in disputes on this topic should not be rewriting entire articles without first getting consensus on a talk page.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fences&Windows 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Consensus through bold editing is not the only option, and it is often inappropriate when you can reasonably predict strong opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IZAK (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Arxiloxos (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Collect (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Avoiding consensus and cherry-picking policies to support your view are not the ways to edit on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agreed. AniMate 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. RadManCF (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Avi (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yossiea (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Well said.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ben Aveling[edit]

1. Shiddukhin Article redundant and inferior to the existing Shidduch

Looking at the two articles, it is not obvious to me that Shiddukhin is redundant. It may be inferior, but it does appear to be on a different though related topic, at least if the opening claim is correct: "Shiddukhin (Hebrew: matching) is the Jewish term for finding a marital partner, and its completion in an engagement. It is not to be confused with the closely related term shiddukhim, which refers to a formal form of match-making."

2. Marriage in the Bible Redundant and inferior to Jewish views on marriage. No attempt was made to discuss non-Jewish biblical marriage.

Possibly inferior but not necessarily redundant. Could be dealt with as a single article, but each article does seem to contain material not in the other.

Agreed an article called that the Marriage_in_the_Bible ought to discuss non-Jewish biblical marriage.

5. Forum shopping

Forum shopping is not a crime. The views of wikiprojects carry weight but do not outweigh the wider community.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Newman_Luke&oldid=1142569732"