Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-31/Mordecai Tendler

Where is the dispute?

 * Mordecai Tendler (article)

Who is involved?

 * (requester)
 * (requester)

Also, please see discussion page by the article in question.

Acceptance of Mediation

 * Koltorah (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Refusal of Mediation

 * The proposer was engaged in blatant and active forum shopping and the article is on its way to deletion. This is neither appropriate nor necessary so I choose not to participate in this mediation at this time. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
I have made repeated attempts to politely discuss with the editor in question (Avi (talk)) my proposals for changes in the article: "Mordecai Tendler." As could be seen on the discussion page, I presented a multitude of newspaper articles that directly contradict the current content and tone of the Wikipedia article. The current content is clearly biased and one-sided against the subject of the article. The editor (User: Avraham) has simply chosen to ignore the facts (presented in the form of newspaper articles), and instead is insisting on mantaining the article in it's current biased form. In addition, please see on the discussion page where the editor clearly implies that he has a personal connection to the article in question. It would seem that if that is indeed the case, he should immediately recuse himself due to personal bias. Thanks in advance for your attention.

Mediator notes
Self-assigning as mediator. Well, hello all. :) Does this sound fair? --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Yes. Koltorah (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * has cross-posted their grievances across multiple noticeboards and dispute resolution initiatives; Koltora, please don't do this any more as it just serves to complicate matters, but this does not necessarily preclude the Mediation Cabal mediating this dispute. Nor do, necessarily, the administrative actions noted preclude mediation, except where parties fail to engage with each other in good faith. However, the Mediation Cabal cannot condone any behaviour that leads to administrative actions such as blocking being undertaken nor with edit warring.
 * All parties are strongly recommended to agree to a temporary ceasefire while mediation is ongoing.
 * All named parties must indicate their permission for mediation to continue (in the section provided above), and those parties must continue in good faith with a common aim of bringing the dispute to a close.
 * Closed. has declined mediation . If at a future time Avraham wishes to enter mediation with you, Koltorah, please feel free to file another request. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
User has been blocked several times for edit-warring and pov-pushing on the article, and recently began spamming noticeboards with the same complaint, ,,. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for accuracy (and fairness), I was only blocked once (as noted below), due to my lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia guidlines for reverting an article. Koltorah (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I honestly am attempting to search for a fair resolution. I attempted to edit the page (I was simply unaware of the three time edit rule, thus my getting blocked) multiple times based on solid source material that I refferenced. However each time, my edits were reverted without any explanation. Since I believe (based on the multiple newspaper articles that I refferenced) that the article in it's current form is strongly biased against the subject, I attempted to engage in discussion with the "reverting" editor. I spent the time and effort to offer good faith explanations as to why the article should be change, and received no response. Eventually, the editor responded with sharp words of misplaced rebuke- without addressing or even recognizing one point or fact that I raised. This entire history could be found on the discussion page of the article. As far as my multiple attempts seeking external editor's intervention, I don't understand why that would be something negative. I simply wish for someone who is fair and un-biased to review the page and bring this issue to a fair and honest resolution. Koltorah (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately this appears to be a content dispute that the complainant seems to have escalated and is talking personally for reasons unknown. There is ongoing discussion among multiple editors (not just the involved parties) at this article's talk page. This request for mediation seems to unfairly single out Avi, as Koltorah seems to have done multiple times at multiple locations: on his talk page, at the article's talk page, and through the forumshopping mentioned by Ohnoitsjamie above. -- Kinu t /c  18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason why Avi is specificaly mentioned, is because he is the only one taking a strong unwavering position on the article in question. I have attempted to edit the article in good faith. Avi blocked my edits. I attempted once more, and another editor confirmed my changes. Shortly after, Avi returned and erased my edits. I attempted dialogue to find common ground on the discussion page, but Avi ignored me. I attempted two more times (at the time not knowing that the third time carries a penalty of being blocked), once again being reversed by Avi. I tried once more to engage in good faith discussion, to no avail. Avi would not even acknowledge the multiple sources that I provided. The only response I received (which could be reviewed on the discussion page) was a hostile tone, and an admission that he was personally involved in the subject matter (eg: he claimed to know the amount of Rabbis that have served in the synagouge, something that is not common public knowledge).

My conclusion was that Avi simply was not interested in good faith discussion to find common ground. That is why I am requesting the mediation assistance, to bring about a fair and honest resolution. Koltorah (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see the edit where your changes were accepted in the history of the article. On the other hand, I do see multiple rejections of your edits, not only by Avi, but also by User:Baseball Watcher, User:In actu, User:Mike Rosoft, and me. Likewise, you were blocked, give or take, two days after your first contribution to this article and/or its talk page. To say you attempted dialogue without giving others time to look at your proposed changes, etc., does not seem logical. Instead, it appears that you chose to attempt to shoehorn your edits into the article, and ultimately this is what led to your block for violating the 3RR. I appreciate you attempting dialogue now, but I fail to see what remedy mediation could give anyone when, ultimately, this is a dispute over content and WP:RS that requires discussion at the article's talk page. -- Kinu t /c  19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1) As to the one who indeed confirmed my edits/revisions (before Avi reverted them), Ebe123.

2) I think it will be clear to any third party, that mediation is indeed very much in order. First of all, the fact that Avi revealed his personal bias (by expressing details regarding the subject that is not publicly known)- which would seem to be reason enough for him to recuse himself. Also, Avi is still refusing to recognize court cases, published articles, etc. as elements that should be included in the article. That does not seem reasonable, and he does not seem to have any interest in changing his mind. How about a mediator deciding?- let's bring this dispute to a fair and honest resolution. Koltorah (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where Avi indicates a COI or access to "insider" information, and as far as I can see he has been actively engaged on the talk page of this article even before your involvement in this article. However, your response to his statements, which cite Wikipedia guidelines and provide significant justification for the revert of your edits was: "Your unpleasant tone is not appreciated." Unrelatedly, while one editor may have confirmed your changes, four editors reverted them. Nothing in an article is permanent, with good reason. Just as editors may accept changes that appear legitimate, they also have the onus to take a second look and revert changes that seem inappropriate. In this case, your deletion of well-sourced content and replacement with poorly-sourced content and POV appears justifiably reverted multiple times. -- Kinu t /c  19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to your first question where you are requesting the specific citation which implies personal involvement, the following is from the discussion page: Avi: " Tendler is currently fighting to regain that position, perhaps, but the shul has had at least two rabbis since then, and I think Tendler has a minyan in his own house as wll,Italic text so to state he is the current rabbi now is factually incorrect."

As to the rest of what you wrote, I can't understand why you refuse discuss the facts that I have presented. If anything, your words are a further proof regarding the neccessity of a mediation.

Koltorah (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I would advise you to assume good faith. That's an extremely weak statement on which to base serious accusations such as COI and POV. Given Avi's interest in this topic, and the fact that he said "I think" in regards to the second part of his statement, isn't it easier to assume that, perhaps, maybe, he read that information somewhere? Being interested and knowledgeable about a subject isn't a "conflict of interest" the last time I checked. As far as the facts you're presenting, here is what I see: at least four other editors felt your repeated addition of content without first attempting to engage in actual dialogue about the content on the talk page was inappropriate, you got caught for 3RR, and now you seem to have a vendetta against Avi, despite clear evidence on the article's talk page at his attempts to reason with you in what appears to be a civil, policy/guideline-based, constructive manner. Am I missing anything else? -- Kinu t /c  19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? A "vendetta"? I beg to differ. I think that any uninvolved editor will see that the hostility and lack of dialogue has been one-sided. I appreciate your concern for Avi, but he didn't even contest his personal involvement when presented to him on the discussion page. Take a look.

Again, this discussion does not seem to be leading anywhere productive, so I will remain with my very valid request for a mediator to resolve this issue.

Until you discuss something of substance (eg: the multiple newspaper articles that I presented to be incorporated into the wikipedia article), I think everyone would agree that this is a waste of time.

I await the mediator's kind assitance.

Koltorah (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is a waste of time... but you're the one who opened this mediation request. As for discussing "something of substance": any useful discussion about the actual content of the article, sources, etc., is happening at the article's talk page, which is where it should be happening, as it is a content dispute, so I don't see why it needs to be discussed in this mediation request. Mediation isn't a replacement for an article's talk page. Other than that, the only issue here is what you consider to be Avi's actions and words, which I see nothing wrong with. He disagreed with your edits, and justifiably so, by citing actual guidelines for reliable sources. What I see: you were considered to be in the wrong by multiple editors, and now you're escalating the issue to completely unnecessary levels. That's from someone who considers himself an uninvolved party in the sense that all I have done is engaged in dialogue with you on the article's talk page regarding your questions on WP:RS and, in my role as an administrator, enforced the 3RR. And, true, my concern for Avi seems unnecessary; he has done nothing outside what is considered legitimate in terms of civility and editing, and he is addressing your concerns appropriately on the article's talk page. I'm fairly certain any other uninvolved party would agree. -- Kinu t /c  20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The record clearly speaks for itself. The discussion page refutes your version of the facts. And obviously the waste of time is this discussion, since you seem to only be interested in blindly backing Avi- instead of addressing the issues to bring a resolution.

With that in mind, once again, I await the mediator to bring this issue to a proper resolution. Koltorah (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "[my] version of the facts"... there are just facts. And you have yet to indicate what resolution you seek in this. -- Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The mediator will be welcomed to bring a fair resolution as he or she sees fit. As stated, the discussion page speaks for itself. The arguments are preserved, now it will be up to the mediator to decided what a fair resolution would be. Koltorah (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)