4 ms·

> Why is the protection of a page relevant? >> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too > Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" re

> Why is the protection of a page relevant? >> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too > Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect. > Why did it have to go to dispute at all? Because someone disputed it. Though, really, it may not have been necessary in this case. You may also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...

brigandish 9mo ago
You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now. Or, you can put it down to an honest mistake or difference of opinion. That really is the oldest written constitution in the world, or it’s got a valid claim to be, and those people don’t want to add any respectability to their pet project. Tough choice. The phrases “die on that hill” and “never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake” come to mind. Do continue.
- Gander5739 9mo ago
  I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it. This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_1#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar...
  - brigandish 9mo ago
    Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form. Explain it. Lay it out.
    - Gander5739 9mo ago
      You seem to be arguing in bad faith, so this will be my last reply. It does not persist today; I removed it. It occured once, 10 years ago, and again, a few months ago.
      - brigandish 9mo ago
        "Arguing in bad faith" - what would that actually mean? Would it be the same as using a sock puppet to push an agenda? That wasn't me, that's what I'm pointing out and you're dismissing for no good reason. Regardless: - The page is still titled "Constitution…" when the opening paragraph contains "The name "Constitution of Medina" is misleading as the text did not establish a state." Make that make sense. - "and the first "Constitution"" is still in the page It persists. Now, what I might consider bad faith is: - being unwilling to answer simple, straightforward questions, which is apt, considering Socrates was an Athenian - having such an interest in the page that you claim you made edits - not checking properly and thus thinking this only happened twice, and wasn't part of attritional arguments, rollbacks, edits and counter-edits Wikipedia must be alright if one does not wish to see a problem.

brigandish 9mo ago

You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now. Or, you can put it down to an honest mistake or difference of opinion. That really is the oldest written constitution in the world, or it’s got a valid claim to be, and those people don’t want to add any respectability to their pet project. Tough choice. The phrases “die on that hill” and “never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake” come to mind. Do continue.

Gander5739 9mo ago
I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it. This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_1#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar...
- brigandish 9mo ago
  Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form. Explain it. Lay it out.
  - Gander5739 9mo ago
    You seem to be arguing in bad faith, so this will be my last reply. It does not persist today; I removed it. It occured once, 10 years ago, and again, a few months ago.
    - brigandish 9mo ago
      "Arguing in bad faith" - what would that actually mean? Would it be the same as using a sock puppet to push an agenda? That wasn't me, that's what I'm pointing out and you're dismissing for no good reason. Regardless: - The page is still titled "Constitution…" when the opening paragraph contains "The name "Constitution of Medina" is misleading as the text did not establish a state." Make that make sense. - "and the first "Constitution"" is still in the page It persists. Now, what I might consider bad faith is: - being unwilling to answer simple, straightforward questions, which is apt, considering Socrates was an Athenian - having such an interest in the page that you claim you made edits - not checking properly and thus thinking this only happened twice, and wasn't part of attritional arguments, rollbacks, edits and counter-edits Wikipedia must be alright if one does not wish to see a problem.