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: 07:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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appears to be personal opinion or theories throughout articles that are not supported by the sources brought, using an outdated and possibly biased source when other public-domain and much more authoritative and normative sources exist, and overall continuing to edit in a way that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.
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(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.)
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
During the course of this RfC, Newman Luke has seen fit to create RfC pages against three users he obviously dislikes, now at:
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.
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
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:
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.
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. 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:
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.
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: 07:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(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.)
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
During the course of this RfC, Newman Luke has seen fit to create RfC pages against three users he obviously dislikes, now at:
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.
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
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:
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.
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. 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:
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.