Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Newman Luke

Footnote
I would just like to say, that although I agreed with and added to the complaint, that NL is certainly not the worst offender. He is civil, and he does respect the material that he disagrees with. Since we have reals haters out here (there is an RFC out for one), I do appreciate this and thought I should mention this. I think NL is wrong, but he is not a villain. Mzk1 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the next step?
As someone who is not familiar with all of the procedures, what is the next step? I have to admit, I keep on wavering between my absolute frustration at NL's taking the JE beyond what it actually says, and appreciating that at least he is not insulting, unlike some others. I stand by my endorsement, of course, and look forward to the day when he will start a sub-page on yours truly.Mzk1 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that NL has not made an edit since 25 February. I'm hopeful that the message of this RfC has been well received. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newman Luke has now returned, and comes out of his corner swinging with not one but three counter RfCs of his own, climbing the heights of WP:DISRUPT, see Requests for comment/Newman Luke. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Newman Luke may be unfamiliar with the RfC/User conventions, and thus unaware that all four of these RfCs ("against" him and the editors he names) can and should normally be handled on the same page (i.e., whichever was certified first). Assuming that these RfCs all involve the same basic dispute, they should be merged.
 * Wikipedia's editors are smart enough to figure out that "he has a dispute with me" normally involves "I have a dispute with him", and thus we assume that they won't put too much emphasis on the name used at the top of the page. The relevant instruction is "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What IZAK has failed to mention is that I started drafting the three RFCs before this RFC was created. Newman Luke (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO the timing is irrelevant: Single disputes need to be discussed on a single page, not scattered across four (or more).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to BenAveling's view
moved from main page
 * Although I agree with you that the views of WikiProjects do not outweigh the views of the wider community, the problem here was disruptive forum shopping in its simplest form. Debresser (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested motion
Than NL be restricted from making any substantial edits on any articles clearly related to Judaism without first obtaining clear consensus for the edit on the article talk page, and, for the sake of making this well-defined, that "substantial" means "involving more than 100 words being directly affected by the edit." That should this restriction be violated, an admin may ban NL from specific articles as an initial remedy, and that the scope of the ban may be increased for additonal deliberate violations. I posit that most useful edits can be done within such a restriction, and that this type of restriction is not Draconian. Collect (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would use another classical Greek example and say that meak surgeons are prone to leave putrid wounds. Anything but fixing spelling mistakes or minor rephrases, is major in my opinion. But I agree with the general drift of your proposal. What I am not sure of is whether it falls within our jurisdiction. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC motions fall under "community consensus" and any admin may invoke them as such (trusting that this did not in any way involve canvassing or vote-stacking, which I think should be grounds for invalidating any RfC if the vote-stacking is the basis for "consensus") Collect (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC/User discussions do not create sanctions or any involuntary restrictions. We're looking for voluntary resolution of the dispute (through, e.g., editor education, greater clarity of goals, and compromise).
 * If, on the other hand, this is your assessment of the situation, then I encourage you to explain your view, with reference to any supporting evidence, in a signed 'view' on the main page, instead of leaving it here, where it will likely be ignored by any subsequent dispute resolution proceedings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell that to admins who have routinely imposed sanctions as a result of (perceived) consensus  (see WP:False consensus for an essay thereon.)   And to admins who have supported enforcement of such sanctions made on such a basis.   Clearly, though, any suggestion made here has as much weight as though made on any other process page, hence can be weighed by any admin.   And per WP:CONSENSUS "Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus."  Note especially that RfC is listed as a source for "community consensus."  Seems that two pages disagree. Collect (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I made my suggestion for practical reasons: not every admin happens to read the RfC/U talk pages.  A comment here is far more likely to be accidentally overlooked.
 * The RfC/User process itself does not -- cannot -- impose involuntary sanctions. RfC/Us are pages, not users.  Pages cannot have the power to block a user.  If an individual admin happens to read an RfC-related page and decide to block a user, that is the admin's action, not the RfC's action.  Conversely, even if dozens of editors demanded here that someone be blocked, it simply wouldn't happen -- unless and until an individual admin agreed with it and chose to issue the block.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems we are in agreement then. We should make discussion of a motion part of the Rfc proper, and later find an (uninvolved?) admin to agree to enforce the sanction if needed. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Judaism topic ban for  Newman Luke

 * NOTE: Newman Luke's most recent WP:RFAR against Users Avraham, Debresser, IZAK, has been officially dismissed as of 16 March 2010.

Please see: Requests for comment/Newman Luke by User:Avraham: After Newman Luke has opened a RfAr (Arbitration/Requests/Case) 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.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally would like to stick to what we mentioned before - to forbid only non-minor edits, but not a complete topic ban. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately: (1) Newman Luke does not work slowly or incrementally, but rather he comes in with sweeping and overturning edits and moves, so that it would be impossible to differentiate between "minor" and "non-minor" edits in his particular case. (2) Also, Newman Luke does not willingly or happily submit to guidance so that there would be no way to enforce a "forbid only non-miner edits" no fly zone in his case. (3) In addition, who is going to define what is "minor" or "major" in every situation? While some articles may rely on a classical Judaism Torah precept that is regarded as "major" but in Newman Luke's eyes he could say it's "minor" and could therefore do as he wishes. (4) Therefore it becomes practically and theoretically impossible to differentiate sanctions in his case and only a complete topic ban will work in his case. IZAK (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A person who passes off OR and synthesis as "sources" cannot be trusted with minor edits. What happens if he starts using sources we can't check so easily?Mzk1 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave a workable definition of "minor" above. If there would be consensus for it, which it seems there isn't. It is just that I am very reluctant to go to a complete topic ban. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not happy about it either, but what can you do with someone who misrepresents his sources? What do we do when he finds "sources" that we cannot check so easily?Mzk1 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * About #3, IMO WP:MINOR is a fairly well-understood page. Correcting spelling and grammar is minor; changing the meaning of a sentence, paragraph, section, or article is never minor.  Therefore I think that anyone could be "trusted" with minor edits.
 * However, I don't see any compelling need for a topic-banned editor to make such minor changes, and fixing a spelling error when you really want to re-write everything would doubtless not be satisfying work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Next steps
I think that it is sadly clear that there is a consensus for Newman Luke to be topic-banned from Judaism-related articles. Is the next step a notice of this on WP:ANI? -- Avi (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New tactic by Newman Luke
Aside from using the Passover Holiday (luckily there is no Second Day in Israel) as cover to start on the articles again, Newman Luke has created a new ADMINISTRATIVE section called WP:OWNING.Mzk1 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anybody noticed that he reverted two articles? See and . I propose a block is needed. Should this be requested at wp:ani? Debresser (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ANI is probably the place to go... or back to ArbCom, but I think you'll have to demonstrate that "the community" failed to handle it, and ANI's a good way to find out whether the community is ready to handle it.
 * I agree that the recent edits (involving unilateral rejection of page merges) are concerning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, ANI or ArbCom would be where to escalate the dispute if it is not resolved - note resolution can happen by him voluntarily ceasing the disputed behavior, by removing himself from the situations where he engages in the disputed behavior, or by sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He also seems to have started Shiddukhin on February 15 as an alternative to Shidduch. I propose merging it into that article (which will come down to just redirecting, I guess). Debresser (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)