Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-04/1953 Iranian coup d'état

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • I just want to state for the record that I no longer consider Bayandor an unreliable source, and that it was stupid of me to think that in the first place (conflating policies, I think). I actually wanted to pick this case up, but that comment I'd made - which is linked to - kinda makes that impossible. I was really hoping for an Iran-related medcab case for oh-so-long. This is me, having a sad: :-( Xavexgoem (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Wow, I think I mediated the last time this very article came through here![reply]
    • But I think his source should be used with caution. I've seen enough people find something new and then want to completely change the article to reflect only that. It is a minority opinion, and therefore gets a minority of text. I would hope. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I keep forgetting the popular name of the condition in which a student reads one book and immediately considers it to be the only answer... freshman or sophomore something-or-other? However, I always try to remember that the temptation exists. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet 's description of the dispute[edit]

Binksternet's description is biased, inaccurate, and deceptive. I am afraid he is just fishing by constantly repeating massively spun half-truths like Bayondor's book having been "peer reviewed" even after he was corrected, or pretending that only one other editor has questioned Bayandor as a reliable source, when there are actually eight different editors who have expressed serious doubts about the reliability of Bayandor as a source on this particular topic. [1] As a Wikipedian, I find it very disappointing that such an editor with a long history of disruption, who is now basically stalking me around Wikipedia (as evidenced here), is given so much leeway, just because he knows how to make repetitive arguments full of convincing-sounding misinformation, spin facts, and game the system by sweet-talking his way out of trouble every time he gets blocked. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo where/who are these eight editors? your link leads only to more assertions by you, not eight editors. As a wikipedian, I have never encountered an editor as agressive, and as short of supporting evidence for their claims as you. And "make repetitive arguments full of convincing-sounding misinformation, spin facts," sound exactly like yourself. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By following the links all the way through to the links off them I counted 4 editors. And in one case an opinion of "historical revisionism" [2] was attributed to an editor when they described Byandor as fringe and having views of an unspecified "extreme nature". GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification - I was referring to the texts of the diffs not the sections that the diffs were in.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo777, your talk entry here would have so much greater gravitas had you actually accepted mediation. Without accepting mediation, your complaint that I have been given "so much leeway" falls on deaf ears. Why do you turn to the talk page to defend against me after you did not accept mediation? This is the second time you have thrown away the chance to take part in Wikipedia-moderated mediation. I can only conclude that you do not feel that you have a strong foundation, that your assertions cannot hold up under careful scrutiny regarding WP:Harassment, WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're repeating the flase claim that I "did not accept mediation". I commented on this page, the moment I noticed your notification on my talk page, and I clearly outlined my problems with your biased presentation or should I say misrepresentations of the facts. You're boasting that my concerns "fall on deaf ears", since you once again managed to sweet-talk your way out of yet another block. But remember the leeway you enjoy now, will not last for much longer. I PROMISE you that. If you continue down the same destructive path on these topics, creating new enemies along the way, it won't be long before you're banned or topic banned for good. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did not accept mediation here after this notice was placed on your talk page on 1:53, January 5, 2011, linking to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-04/1953 Iranian coup d'état. Just like last time, you waited for a while, in this case four days after your first notice, to volunteer a talk page entry instead of a project page entry. You went to a new link, one I posted on my talk page at 20:53, January 7, 2011, a link to this talk page. Same story: you entered your opinion on the talk page but did not touch the mediation page, the link to which was the first thing given to you. So, yes, I continue to say that you did not accept mediation, and you have done this twice now with me. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You did not accept" implies that I somehow rejected. That was a false assumption on your part, the first time you mentioned it. And now you're just making an accusation. If I wanted to reject mediation, I'd have done so on with my signature. I am not a robot to swiftly respond to anything that's posted on my talk page, and I usually overlook the comments posted there for days. The moment I noticed the existence of this page, as a result of reading your comment on my talk page, I came here to study what was going on, and soon after I expressed my outrage at your biased, inaccurate, and deceptive description. My problem was your your presentation, not with the idea of mediation, as you're trying to imply. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend dropping the stick and backing away from the dead horse... Any post here on a mediation request talk page is an indication that you are aware of the request for mediation. The fact that you did not choose to participate in the mediation itself cannot but be seen as purposeful. It is not an accident that you did not participate in mediation with me, twice. You pleaded ignorant last time, too, so this time gets no slack. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, drop the bad-faith accusations, this is my last warning to you. Your description was biased, inaccurate, and deceptive, and hence my comments here. So I was participating in the process, trying to get the description changed to reflect the facts, before putting my signature under it, endorsing it. If I had chosen not to participate, I'd have declined on the mediation page. You need to stop making bad-faith accusations, you're in no position to tell me what I did or did not intend to do. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, your first talk page entry here was not "participating in the process", it was a complaint against the process. You made no effort to indicate what portions you wanted changed as a prerequisite to your participation. Participating would have been signing on to mediation, at which point you could define the conflict in your own terms. You did not do this; you chose not to participate. The position I am in is one everybody else here is in: I can look at editing histories and at talk entries, and I can draw the conclusion that this is the second time you chose not to participate in mediation with me. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone here, is online 24/7 like you, to be able to do this and that in real time. I have a real life outside of Wikipedia. I planed to introduce my own description of the dispute in due time, and that's why I did not decline or "refuse mediation" as you claim and participated in the talk page to outline my problems with your description. Signing the mediation, as it was, would have meant endorsing your biased, inaccurate, and deceptive description. You can draw any subjective conclusions you want to - but the objective fact is that I did not decline this mediation with my signature. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are on Wikipedia often enough to reply to a mediation request within a week, the required time. The objective fact is that you let this mediation request die by starvation rather than killing it outright. The result is the same. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an "objective fact", it's a bad-faith accusation by you. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody expects that you are a robot, standing by 24/7 to respond immediately to every talk page notice. Everybody understands that you have a real life outside of English Wikipedia. However, after I placed the invitation to this mediation request on your talk page, and prior to Xavexgoem closing down the request as hopeless, you did the following:
So, in the four days between you being notified and the request being closed, you made 69 edits, none of which were acceptance of, or outright rejection of the mediation request. This is not exactly the profile of someone who has limited access to Wikipedia, someone who is unable to respond 24/7 to every talk page notice. There was plenty of opportunity for you to respond, and you did not do so. I will forever characterize your inaction as this: choosing not to participate in mediation. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have told you numerous times , repeating yourself is not a way to improve your arguments. I already explained to you above, that some items on my talk page go unnoticed for days. Either way, you're free to characterize whatever you want in whichever you wish. Your subjective opinion has absolutely no value here. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-04/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état&oldid=408158817"