Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

  • This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
  • We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
  • The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN.
  • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Open/close quick reference
  • To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
  • To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Template talk:Romanian_language Resolved Borsoka (t) 15 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 2 hours
Functional medicine Closed 132.162.95.60 (t) 15 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 15 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 15 days, 3 hours
Ashleigh Barty In Progress Sharyn4939 (t) 14 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 7 hours Fyunck(click) (t) 2 days, 4 hours
Talk:Kid Cudi#The_discography_section_of_the_musician%27s_primary_article Closed Qlazarus (t) 14 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 14 days, Robert McClenon (t) 14 days,
Mar Thoma Syrian Church, User talk:Chandy of Pakalomattom Closed Chad The Goatman (t) 12 days, 20 hours Robert McClenon (t) 12 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 12 days, 10 hours
Talk:Camille Paglia#BLP_violation Closed Jean-Francois Gariepy (t) 11 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 10 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 10 days, 4 hours
Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City Failed KyleJoan (t) 11 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 23 hours
Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System Closed CherryPie94 (t) 9 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 2 hours
Talk:International Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Editors_reverting_showing_bias? Closed Shiva das (t) 8 days, Robert McClenon (t) 7 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 days, 10 hours
Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein New Stefka Bulgaria (t) 3 days, 13 hours None n/a Stefka Bulgaria (t) 3 days, 13 hours
Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body New 103.231.217.50 (t) 3 days, 11 hours None n/a Zefr (t) 2 days, 8 hours
Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish_bill Closed Selfstudier (t) 21 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 hours
Talk:T. S._Wiley Closed 67.143.160.240 (t) 2 days, 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours
User talk:Koavf Closed Koavf (t) 2 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours
Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy Closed Example (t) Unknown Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours
Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes New Radiphus (t) 10 hours None n/a TedEdwards#top (t) 24 minutes

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 23:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)



Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Template talk:Romanian_language[edit]

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Borsoka on 08:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

Functional medicine[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 132.162.95.60 on 19:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

Ashleigh Barty[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Sharyn4939 on 05:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Regarding the (correct) Nationality description of "Indigenous Australian". The word "Indigenous" keeps getting removed when describing her ethnicity. This is significant because Ashleigh identifies as an Aboriginal person and is recognised as such by the Aboriginal community. She is not described as an Indigenous Australian anywhere on the page - her father is - but mention is only made to her background. This is not accurate and it is completely inappropriate that non Indigenous people keep redefining the identity of an Aboriginal person. The Aboriginal community has perceived this ongoing edit war as a racist attack to attempt to obscure her Aboriginal identity. It is an example of non Indigenous people cleansing content to suit their own comfort level of race. Wikipedia should not be a platform governed by White Privilege, there is no room for racism here. User Nigos closed down my previous attempt at conflict resolution stating I did not provide a source - which I have done - and that accusations of racism were "borderline attack" - I'm not sure how you would describe the behaviour of non Indigenous editors in seeking to obscure a successful Aboriginal person's race except as racist. Furthermore Nigos seems to be basing stated opinion on the simple version of the page and not the comprehensive page that I referenced in the dispute - guess Nigos is using a mobile phone to make judgements to close disputes. The talk page has very clear and well articulated reasons why Ashleigh should be referred to as an Indigenous Australian and many pages of other Indigenous Australians use similar descriptive language prominently. Everyone who is coming into this discussion with an Aboriginal voice or perspective is being shut down.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, provided link to news article which outlines how Aboriginal people see the edit war - Digital Genocide is the title of the Welcome to Country article on the subject.

How do you think we can help?

To resolve the ongoing stalemate over the use of the word "Indigenous". This edit war has been going on for months and it is not going to stop - the Aboriginal community are offended by the digital ethnic cleansing at the hands of non Indigenous editors.

Summary of dispute by WWGB[edit]

Per MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Barty is notable for being a top tennis player. While it is undeniable that Barty is indigenous, that is not the reason for her notability. WWGB (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the summary of dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
WGB : You keep talking about the lead but I have said this numerous times, I will try again. Nowhere in the article does it say she is an Indigenous Australian. Furthermore your assessment of the relevance to the notability of her achievement is racially biased based on your own comprehension of the issue. You might not fathom why this is notable and that is understandable if you are not well educated in Indigenous Australian issues. But your resistance to trying to understand the inappropriateness of your obstructive actions is troubling. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
You showed a link to an article on Welcome to country, which called Wikipedians "colonists" who commit "digital genocide". I think this is a borderline personal attack. On W:Simple:Talk:Ashleigh Barty, you claimed it wad a source, when it seemed to be a personal commentary. Nigos (talk Contribs) 08:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
By the way, there are 13 mentions of the word "indigenous" in the article. Nigos (talk Contribs) 08:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Nigos A "borderline personal attack"... by an Indigenous Media outlet 3 months ago? How is that exactly? I'm not being difficult, I just can't join the dots on that. I provided that link as evidence of my statement about how the Aboriginal community perceives this issue, I assumed that is what you meant when you said the onus was on me..or did you mean that I needed to provide evidence of her Aboriginality? (surely not?) Do you think that whenever racial bias is called out it is to be characterised as a personal attack, because this is the second time you have used that phrase. Are you familiar with the history of genocide in Australia? Would you like me to outline the history and context of the article? I believe that an issue in this dispute is that the people who are resistant to the addition of the word "Indigenous" are not very well educated or informed on Aboriginal history, culture or contemporary issues. In this I would be more than happy to explain why so many people have tried to edit this page over the last 3 months, and why it isn't going to stop until Ash is properly described as an Indigenous or Aboriginal Australian. My family is Bundjalung and I am very much involved in contemporary Aboriginal issues. I worked for many years as a cultural awareness facilitator within both the Australian Federal and NSW State Government. I was the National Project Manager of Cultural Awareness within the Department of Employment, Education and Training so I am qualified to assist in the elevation of cultural sensitivity. I would also love it if someone could help me understand why so many users object to the term Indigenous Australian, and why this edit war has gone on for so long. I understand the passion and indignation of Aboriginal people and their allies who want to see the word included. If not racism, then what is the motivation of the many users who keep expunging her cultural identity? Plenty of prominent Indigenous people on Wikipedia have their cultural identity stated in the first couple of sentences, so it is not a stretch that this person could as well, why the fuss? The number of times "Indigenous" is used is not the issue, and I refer you back to the dispute I have outlined above. Thank you (Sharyn4939 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
You can't just assume that the people you aren't happy with are "modern-day colonisers". We don't even know where they actually are. I haven't fully read the manual of style, but apparently there is this MOS:ETHNICITY. The info can be added to the infobox. Just remember that not all Wikipedia editors are White, as you said at User talk:Thebrisc. Nigos (talk Contribs) 11:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fyunck[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
@Fyunck: This is my first dispute, was unsure of the process of notifying you for comment. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
Wrong ping name. It's lucky I even saw this since you'd need to put Fyunck(click) as the name. First off, you need to follow protocol or things go south very quickly in a discussion. You make a bold edit to an article. You get reverted by someone. You make the same bold edit to the article with perhaps a better summary as to why. Someone else reverts you. You NEVER re-add it again. It's brought to talk and you try your best to convince others why your way is correct. If others disagree you can try to bring more people into the discussion with an RFC, but you don't force the change by edit warring.
As for the post here, I'm kinda confused by it. You say indigenous keeps getting removed, that we are all racists with white privilege. Well that's hogwash. Not everything goes in the first paragraph of the lead. We don't say Maria Sharapova is a Siberian Russian born tennis player. We wouldn't say someone is an Eskimo if they represent Canada. The WTA has a bio on Barty that makes no mention that she's aboriginal (or actually half aboriginal). Tennis.com Australia, same thing, nothing in the bio. Her twitter and facebook accounts, zip on aboriginal! You say there's no mention of it in the article, and that would be incorrect. The lead already says ""Barty is of Indigenous heritage and serves as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia." Prose also says her father is "a Ngarigo Indigenous Australian" and her mother is "the daughter of English immigrants." Later in prose we have a quote from Barty, "I'm a very proud Indigenous woman...". There is plenty there but I'm guessing you demand it be in the first sentence, not just the lead? I would disagree, and it appears so do many others. And that's where we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the summary of dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Fyunck I have had my toes in the Wikipedia pool for less than 24 hours and it is about as user friendly as a porcupine, so if I have not followed protocol it's because researching protocol is like putting stockings on an octopus. I takes a little time and obviously it is easy to mess up. OK so all I can really glean from your comment is validation that your cultural awareness of Australian Aboriginal people is not very high. If someone identifies as Aboriginal, then they are Aboriginal (and please note the capital A in Aboriginal). There is no half Aboriginal, there is no quarter Aboriginal. Those are terms that people use who have really identified as non Indigenous but are describing their ethnic heritage as a jigsaw - personal identity is not a jigsaw - you are or you aren't. In Australia, generally this is the language of people who use skin colour or European ancestry as a way to discredit, delegitimise, denigrate or discriminate against Aboriginal people. Furthermore, in Australia Blood Quantum is highly offensive and considered racist because it was used as an instrument in the Stolen Generation to usurp the parental rights of Aboriginal people and steal their children. No culturally sensitive person describes a person who has identified as Aboriginal as half Aboriginal. Nowhere in the article (in the words of editors) does it say that Ash is an Indigenous Australian. It says she is of Indigenous heritage which (as I explained above) is not the same thing. (I have Scottish, English and Irish heritage, and I do not identify as any of those). The description of her father is accurate, unfortunately the only similar description of the subject is wayyyyyy down the bottom and in her own words. And those words show that the woman herself feels that her cultural identity is a significant part of who she is.. (and note Fyunck, she does not say she is a proud half Aboriginal woman). There are reasons why Indigenous Australians identify specifically as Indigenous Australians that can not be compared to your Sharapova analogy above, but I feel like I could write you a book on your knowledge gaps of Indigenous Australia and what you need to take away from this is that you are culturally and historically ignorant - which is fine in itself because lots of people are - what is important is that you take the time to listen to Aboriginal people and be prepared to understand that the sphere of white privilege does not extend to encompass the Earth, there are actually other valid perspectives... And many others disagree with your take too... hence a 3 month back and fro - kinda like a ball over a net - and it isn't going to end until the page reflects her Cultural Identity. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
Its quite weird that some of those accounts and IPs made most of their edits on Ashleigh Barty... Yes, there may be some grammatical errors. Did this whole thing start with that news outlet article??? Nigos (talk Contribs) 11:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Some of these points could have been brought up on the talk page and discussed instead of ramming things down peoples throats. You complain of Wikipedia being unfriendly and that it takes time to learn. You haven't exactly tried with all your racism talk. You don't come in as an ensign and turn the engines up to warp 5. That's asking for disaster. That is not working and playing well with others. Talk pages are where changes happen and for getting your point across. All this seems to mean more to you than it does to Barty whose personal pages are pretty baron of the issue. We also have to be careful because according to the wikipedia article on Indigenous Australians, the term can actually be hurtful and disgusting to the original inhabitants and many don't like it at all. There is a Barty article on wikipedia because of one thing, she is a good tennis player and is notable for her playing. Highlights of those things are what belongs in the lead section. The only reason indigenous gets mention in the lead at all is because she is a National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia. The rest belongs in her early years or personal life section just like you'd do with baseball great Johnny Bench and his indigenous background. In her early life and background the first sentence, with consensus, could be tweaked to say "Barty was born on 24 April 1996 to Josie and Robert Barty, and is an Indigenous Australian." It's possible that could work. But it would be best for you to understand what a paint brush is before you start creating the next Mona Lisa. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nigos[edit]

I (mistakenly) reverted one of their edits on simplewiki for being unsourced. I closed the previous dispute on enwiki as it was made when the filer only made one edit to the talk page. Nigos (talk Contribs) 08:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashleigh Barty discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Just to be clear I have changed the relevant section heading to "Indigenous Australian or simply Australian?" Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the views of Sharyn4939 but I am ultimately opposed to it. In this instance we should simply follow standard practice. In the first sentence of the lede it is sufficient to just note date of birth, reason for notability, and country. Further down in the lede it does mention that she is a member of the Indigenous population of Australia. But I think this is of secondary importance to the prevailing government. It tends to be standard practice in our bio articles in the first sentence to mention the country from which the subject hails, and that would simply be Australia. That is not a slight against her identity as an Indigenous person. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The term "Indigenous Australian" has been added in the last paragraph of the lead. That may satisfy the complainant. WWGB (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible First Statement by Volunteer[edit]

User:Sharyn4939 User:WWGB User:Fyunck(click) User:Nigos : Are you still interested in moderated discussion? If so, please respond below this line. You may optionally make a one-paragraph statement, but I will ask for statements shortly. Please do not respond to each others' statements at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible First Statements by Editors[edit]

WWGB added the term to the bottom of the last paragraph of the lead. I'm fine with that and consider it settled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kid Cudi#The_discography_section_of_the_musician%27s_primary_article[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Qlazarus on 21:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC).

Mar Thoma Syrian Church, User talk:Chandy of Pakalomattom[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Chad The Goatman on 03:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Camille Paglia#BLP_violation[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jean-Francois Gariepy on 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC).

Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City[edit]

Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by KyleJoan on 18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by CherryPie94 on 08:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris Savino&action=history[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sambiswas95 on 10:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC).

Talk:International Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Editors_reverting_showing_bias?[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Shiva das on 22:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Stefka Bulgaria on 09:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This section Ties to foreign actors has three unnecessary subheadings:

  • "After exile" (no need for this since we don' have a "Before exile" subheading anymore).
  • "State sponsorship" (a subsection that only consists of one sentence can be merged under section's current heading).
  • "Non-state actors", which can be merged together with the section's current heading: "Ties to foreign and non-state actors"

user:Mhhossein's objection to this has been: "IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section."

I find that Mhhossein's objection does not address the issue of having unnecessary subheadings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

TP discussion that led to nowhere

How do you think we can help?

I think my request makes sense, but Mhhossein's objection doesn't, so we need a uninvolved editor to take a quick look and decide.

Summary of dispute by Mhhossein[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 103.231.217.50 on 12:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Editors claim that Siddha medicine as Quackery But Siddha medicine is a scientific process. Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery). There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.

I believe the editors must feel that Siddha medicine as Quackery because of it's spiritual aspect. I have asked them to provide the details of the experiments done on Siddha medicine to prove that its Quackery.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

If possible it should not be added since it has not been proved as quackery, and will mislead the new people looking for alternative medicine. If that is not possible then it should be added on a separate subheading called "Criticism".

Summary of dispute by Zefr[edit]

There are two levels of the dispute. 1) Specifically and mainly, the IP refutes a widely published account and fact that the Indian Medical Association (members are conventional MDs) identifies Siddha medicine as quackery (stated and sourced in the article lede). 2) More generally, the IP is attempting to redefine Siddha medicine as science-based, but rather there is decades-long knowledge of it as myth-based with no actual scientific practices (same as for other Indian rural medicine, like Ayurveda and Unani), including in 1996 and 2018 by the Supreme Court of India (talk page discussion, and here). Under WP:BURDEN, the IP has no reputable science-based evidence that Siddha is not quackery, and is soapboxing an isolated opinion to counter the prevailing widely-held view, even in India by the Supreme Court and fact-based professionals. We have two essays guiding how Wikipedia deals with medical quackery and pseudoscience: WP:QUACKS and "Yes, we are biased". --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ifnord[edit]

Zefr has summed this up very nicely, please see [1] on the article's talk page. The IP has violated 3RR to remove the indication that this pseudo medicine is considered quackery by mainstream medicine. The article is unbalanced, as is. There is no criticism, no indication (other than the lede) in the text that this is pseudoscience. A reader needs to see an article which is more than simply an advertisement to this practice. Ifnord (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn[edit]

We must follow policy and sources; the OP's requests here are not aligned with these basic requirements. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish_bill[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Selfstudier on 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Talk:T. S._Wiley[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 67.143.160.240 on 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

User talk:Koavf[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Koavf on 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy[edit]

Location of dispute

Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Radiphus on 13:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

An editor with a 1366x768 screen resolution reduced the width of the graph located at List of American Horror Story episodes#Ratings from 1138 to 1100 pixels, in order to make a horizontal scrollbar disappear. This however, disrupted the spacing between the bars, it made it inconsistent and hard for me to read it. They insisted that the bars are "still perfectly visible", even though i kept repeating that it's hard for me to distinguish from one another and that the inconsistent spacing between bars is something uncommon amongst professional/published sources. Another editor restored the first user's version of the graph saying that it "reads fine" to them, while another editor said that the "change to fix the issue was miniscule". Since then, two other editors have tried fixing the spacing between the bars, as they obviously noticed the same problem as i did, but they got reverted from said editors. I wonder if consensus has actually been reached in the talk page, and if accessibility issues is something negotiable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have notified WikiProject Accessibility about the ongoing discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I request that you examine the arguements that have been presented so far in the ongoing discussion and help determine which version of the graph meets encyclopedic standards.

Summary of dispute by Alex 21[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The filing editor initially began their edit-war by reverting my change to the graph width, which changed the width by a mere 38px to remove an unnecessary scroll bar that did nothing to improve the listed article; over such a minor issue, the edit-war seems to have been started solely to pick a fight. They automatically did not AGF by assuming that it did not even exist (while it may not have on their editor, multiple editors have confirmed it does on theirs) and reverted the change multiple times, and after a back-and-forth on the talk page, other un-involved editors stepped in to restore and support the change, and a consensus was formed for it. As far as I can tell, the only reason to have the bars at an even width is to make it look nice, and, in my terms, "pretty", an argument that the filing editor turned around and used on my as an my apparent reason for removing the scrollbar. Another un-involved editor has recently tweaked the width further and I reverted them, informing them of the discussion and consensus on the talk page, but now the filing editor has continued their edit war by restoring the new change and returned to the talk page against the change, with slurs towards myself, a clear and direct personal attack. These are not the actions of an editor here to build an encyclopedia, or to find a resolution to this dispute, or to work with collaboratively with editors. -- /Alex/21 13:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Esuka[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'll only say this once, if you want more from me it simply isn't going to happen. I restored the edit by Alex as I had the same issue as him and felt that it was a justified fix to the page. Please also forgive my tone here but I find it ridiculous that an editor who has clearly got hurt feelings about being reverted has made such a big deal over nothing. Just to conclude, that IP editor I also reverted had one edit to his or her name and that edit was to the ratings graph. That to me is highly suspicious as I reaaaaally doubt a random person who has never edited a Wikipedia page before would know about graphs or how to change them. What are the odds of that huh? More so that the IP editor just happened to edit when this little disagreement was going on. I'm not one to throw accusations but read between the lines.

Just to double confirm my point, I refuse to be drawn into this nonsensical dispute and if you want to sanction me for refusal so be it. You have my statement and if thats not enough, so be it. I don't edit Wikipedia to deal with hurt feelings because someone is upset about being reverted. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TedEdwards[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As a user who evidently has a larger screen resolution than Alex 21 and Esuka, I am not affected by the width of the graph. However, as Alex provided clear evidence, I believe there is a problem. I looked at the graph after I became aware of the discussion, and I suppose now the bars are closer together (in slight contrast with my earlier reply, where I implied I didn't notice a difference), but I am not suddenly struggling the read the graph more. And also, if Radiphus is claiming they are stuggling to read the graph, surely Alex and Esuka would be struggling more, considering they have lower screen resolutions? Neither of them is claiming they can't read the graph, so I stand by a earlier comment that Radiphus is picking a fight against nothing. --TedEdwards 23:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.