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, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. 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.
  • Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
  • Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.


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 the volunteer guide 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), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 with no other edits.
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 line (the entire line).
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions In Progress GHcool (t) 16 days, 3 hours Achar Sva (t) 1 days, 23 hours ImTheIP (t) 23 hours
Durga In Progress MRRaja001 (t) 15 days, 14 hours Rosguill (t) 13 days, 17 hours 245CMR (t) 1 days, 21 hours
Jill Kelley New 10sne1 (t) 9 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 2 hours Beach drifter (t) 1 days, 16 hours
Mòjiāng virus In Progress Shturmavik71 (t) 8 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 2 hours
Talk:Wow! signal Closed ExoEditor (t) 3 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 hours
Dimethyl Ether Closed XTLExpert001 (t) 3 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 3 hours
2020 Delhi Riots New 223.186.58.66 (t) 1 days, 4 hours None n/a 331dot (t) 14 hours
Sucharit Bhakdi Closed Gcmackay (t) 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours
Ahmose-Nefertari New Khruner (t) 6 hours None n/a Khruner (t) 6 hours

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 MDanielsBot (talk) at 19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by GHcool on 22:25, 7 November 2020 (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

User:ImTheIP insists that a random black and white photo allegedly identifying anonymous Palestinian refugee belong in this article. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images, it does not. We edit warred about it a little bit: first I removed the image, he removed it back, I added images of my choosing, he removed them and claimed that I was making a WP:POINT. It appears to me that he believes that he owns the article. As of this writing, the inappropriate photo is still in the article and I fear that no matter what I say or do, it will remain there unless an outside party gets involved.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This can be resolved in three possible ways (in no particular order): 1. I must be made to understand that this photo is appropriate. 2. ImTheIP must be made to understand that this photo is inappropriate. 3. Both Option #1 and ImTheIP must be made to understand that the images I added are also appropriate.

Summary of dispute by ImTheIP[edit]

Thanks for filing this complaint GHcool. This dispute is over illustrative images on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article.

I felt that the article lacked images, so I added a few on October 26; portraits of Mahmoud Abbas, Normal Finkelstein, and Desmond Tutu, a photo of two Palestinian refugees, and a map of the West Bank barrier.

The same day, GHcool removed the photo of the Palestinian refugees: "removed random irrelevant photo" I returned the photo on October 29: "the section is about palestinian refugees, hence a photo of palestinian refugees is relevant" GHcool removed it again on November 2: "removed random irrelevant photo" I reverted that edit and three other edits GHcool had done the same day on November 3: "Rv, please discuss these changes on the talk page" There's also a bunch of discussion on the talk page under the two sections Background and Impertinent_revert.

On November 4, I wrote why I thought the photo of the Palestinian refugee was relevant and GHcool responded by writing Fair enough, I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit. They proceeded by adding a photo of David Ben-Gurion declaring Israel's independence, the logotypes of the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties and Hamas, and a photo of a protest sign showing Israel's flag next to Nazi Germany's flag. I reverted on November 5: "WP:POINT edit". GHcool restored on November 7 and I reverted, again referring to WP:POINT. I wrote on the talk page: "Please stop edit warring and instead edit collaboratively. If you fail to do so I will file a complaint with the administrators" GHcool apparently filed one first.

There have been other disputes too which you can read about on the talk page. I feel like I have done my best to engage GHcool in debate but GHcool has frequently left me hanging. They say they are very busy and don't have time to respond to everything on the BDS talk page Fair enough, but editing contentious articles without having time to discuss might be problematic. I have no problem working collaboratively with GHcool, but they have to understand that we have to discuss things through. ImTheIP (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note* Please make sure all editors involved are notified and when ImTheIP (talk · contribs) Confirms they are willing to participate we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: Is the image being referred to File:Oldman girl nakba.jpg? Seemplez 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes. --GHcool (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: GHcool, can you explain why you feel the image is inappropriate?Achar Sva (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The image is several generations removed from what is being asserted by the text of the article. I guess the Wikipedia term would be that it is synthesis. As I understand it, the logic of placing the picture here is as follows:
      • Premise 1: Articles should depict what is written in the body.
      • Premise 2: The body of the BDS article speaks of the Palestinian right of return.
      • Premise 3: The Palestinian right of return is an alleged legal right of Palestinian refugees of the 1948 War of Independence.
      • Premise 4: Any photograph of any Palestinian refugee taken from any time would suffice to illustrate the point in Premise 2.
      • Conclusion: The BDS article ought include any photograph of any Palestinian refugee taken from any time.
    • Premise 4 is the unstated co-premise, and it is the weak link that makes the conclusion untenable to me. The counter-argument would be to include ghastly pictures of antisemitism in 20th century history to illustrate the concept of antisemitism in the BDS article.
    • So, I'm fine with one of three remedies: (1) allow any photograph that follows this logic to be placed in the article, (2) don't allow this photograph because the logic behind including it is flawed, or (3) illustrate the Palestinian right of return as it pertains to BDS specifically (for example, a photograph of a BDS advocate holding a sign demanding the right of return similar to this image.) --GHcool (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: ImTheIP, can you explain why you feel this image is appropriate? (don't asnwer GHcool, give your own point of view).Achar Sva (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me first state that GHcool has not explained their objection to the photo on the article's talk page other than writing that we shouldn't start a "picture arms race". I replied with "You have twice removed the photo with the edit message 'removed random irrelevant photo' but you haven't explained why you think the photo is irrelevant." Their answer was "Fair enough. I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit." In other words, the arguments GHcool now presents are new to me.

I believe illustrations help articles comes alive; screenful after screenful with nothing but text bores readers. So I added a bunch of photos to the page as described in [1]. For the section about Palestinian refugees, I first searched for photos using Google but I gave up as the photos I found didn't have permissible licensing. I turned to Wikipedia articles about the subject and found photos in the articles Palestinian refugees and 1948 Palestinian exodus. I mostly randomly selected one of the images in 1948 Palestinian exodus#Gallery. My only criteria was that it should feature both a man and a woman.

I feel that an image of Palestinian refugees is appropriate because the section is about the Palestinian refugees' right to repatriate. A better image would have been a photo of living Palestinian refugees, but permissibly licensed photos are hard to come by. Unless the Wikimedia Foundation pays someone with a hefty life insurance to take photos in Palestinian refugee camps, it's not an option. So I feel that the photo is appropriate because it appropriately illustrates the text. ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  •  Question: to GHcool: So your objection is that the image is that a photo of Palestinian refugees in 1948 is not topical enough to illustrate an article on the BDS movement, is that correct? Please answer just yes or no, I'm trying to establish the basis of the dispute. And to ImTheIP, you feel that as the section is about the right to return, it is appropriate. correct? Again, just yes or no please. Achar Sva (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Durga[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by MRRaja001 on 11:17, 8 November 2020 (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

In Hinduism there are primarily three main sections, Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism. So, in the Durga article there are views relating to all these sections. Main problem is According Vaishnavism tradition, Goddess Durga is considered as one of the three major forms of Lakshmi as prakriti in which she represents tamas (dark), who helps Lord Vishnu as Purusha in destruction and a celibate. The Shaivism and Shaktism traditions consider Durga as the Consort of Shiva. The main concern is how to satisfy all the sections. Should we include both "Shiva" (according to Shaivism & Shaktism) and "a Celibate form of Lakshmi" (according to Vaishnavism) to infobox consort section, if yes then how, (celibate Durga is not married and don't have a consort) or should we leave it blank for neutrality, Thank You.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Durga

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I want you guys to go through the references, decide and give your opinions and resolve the problem.

Summary of dispute by Rosguill[edit]

I intervened earlier in this dispute to break up an edit war. I don't pretend to have much of any knowledge about the subject matter, but I actually think that there's a very clear answer to what to do here from an editing perspective. Infoboxes are only for summarizing the most important information that a reader could look at to get a brief summary of the article. A mythological being's status as a consort is not must have information for the infobox that would require us to implement some sort of compromise that presents multiple perspectives, and thus the infobox parameter should be excluded in the event that major perspectives cannot be easily summarized. signed, Rosguill talk 08:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lk568354[edit]

Summary of dispute by Basavaraj Patel[edit]

1. The source quoted for reference to Lakshmi in the page quotes a purana which calls Durga being a form of Lakshmi, Radha. While the same literature which centres around Krishna calls Shiva as a form of Krishna. This was iterpreted by our friends who are not accustomed to indian way of life as a dispute. 2. Going forward, the decision here should be impartially applied to page on Lakshmi and other Hindu dieties pages. 3. Various editors who have editied articles on Vaishnaivism quoted MRRaja as wrong. I have quoted articles by extremist-vaishnav groups who say Durga is Parvati. I can provide sources to prove that majority of hindus do not exclusively belong to a sect, they worship all dieties especially Shiva and Vishnu, and see Durga as mother Parvati. Literary wordings taken out of context is absolutely contradictory to how hinduism is practised reconciling various literature texts belonging to different sects. Basavaraj Patel (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 245CMR[edit]

I am not favouring any party but I am 65% with the inclusion. As I said, the relationship between deities differs from texts to text. As there are hundreds of texts, only widely accepted versions are included in the infobox. There are so many well known deities, who are associated with different deities by some community. Some of them are:

  • Kartikeya, god of war, has multiple martial statuses. In North, he is considered celibate. If not, he is associated with Devasena only. But in South, he has two wives — Devasena and Valli.[1] There are many views but in the Infobox, only one view is included and rest is explained in the article itself.
  • Ganesha, god of beginnings, has similar situation[2], but in the Infobox, his wives in contemporary Hinduism is mentioned.
  • Lakshmi and Sarasvati are two prominent goddesses. There are spouses of Vishnu and Brahma respectively. Sometimes these mothers are associated with other deities. Lakshmi has been associated with Yama, Indra, etc in early texts.[3][4] But now everyone knows who her consort is. Sarasvati is associated with Vishnu, Ganesha or even as a celibate goddess. But in contemporary Hinduism, she is viewed as Brahma's spouse.[5]

According to me, consort can be added with a note or explanation in the lead as Durga is mostly considered Shiva's wife.
Reference

  1. ^ Dalal, Roshen (2010). The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths. Penguin Books India. ISBN 978-0-14-341517-6.
  2. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=oF-Hqih3pBAC&redir_esc=y
  3. ^ Dalal, Roshen (2014-04-18). Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-81-8475-277-9.
  4. ^ Kinsley, David (1998). Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-0394-7.
  5. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=N7LOZfwCDpEC&pg=PA257&dq=sarasvati+survived+these+attacks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-mvypvP3sAhWQfn0KHY8HCvAQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=sarasvati%20survived%20these%20attacks&f=false

Durga discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note* Unless you are having an argument with yourself- you need to list the other editors involved so that they may participate. Also- the DRN does not "make decisions" We mediate discussions and help users make their own decisions. If you are looking at outside eyes to view the conflict and contribute opinions- you may want to try a WP:RFC before opening a DRN. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: I've added the Users, @Lk568354:, @Basavaraj Patel:, @245CMR: - MRRaja001 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Is there a reason why only one of them was notified?

@Nightenbelle:, I am ready to participate but I would take time to put my views. Pls don't close the discussion..💠245CMR💠.👥📜 05:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC) @Nightenbelle:, Yes, i'm willing to participate. - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001:, @Nightenbelle:, where should I start writing my veiws — here or the talk page of Durga..💠245CMR💠.👥📜 12:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@245CMR: Add your comment to the "Summary of dispute by 245CMR" section. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:@Rosguill: Please conclude this discussion - MRRaja001 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:@Rosguill: @MRRaja001:@Basavaraj Patel: I think the problem is already resolved with the note on the infobox of Durga. Pls check. This the best way to resolve this problem..💠245CMR💠.👥📜 04:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Jill Kelley[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 10sne1 on 20:49, 14 November 2020 (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

I found this article lacking balance per WP:UNDUE. One editor repeatedly edits the article to add negative statements already covered and explained in the article. We have gone back and forth, I have remained neutral and have cited properly all of my edits. This editor has removed or changed content, claiming that facts were not sourced properly when he deleted the citations then circled back later to delete the associated content claiming "it's lacking reliable sources." The editor appears to want to include more negative content and delete anything remotely positive about the subject, even if well sourced. Those actions appear to violate WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE rules if I am understanding them correctly.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jill_Kelley

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As we have gone back and forth on the associated talk page of this subject, I believe it would be most fair to have a few completely unrelated editors and/or admins take a look at the content, the sources, and the edit reversions and weight in to put the edit war to rest. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Fat_Irish_Guy[edit]

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

I’ll try to keep this short. I’ve done my best to edit this article based on Wikipedia standards. I tried to carefully document the rationale for my changes. That’s resulted in constant interference to make the article a promotional puff piece. I’ve also received a significant number of baseless personal attacks by various usernames that are also dedicated to editing this article to be a promotional puff piece. Please view my Talk page for the most recent example. If you read the talk page of the article, you’ll see this has been a consistent problem since 2013. It’s my belief that it’s the article subject and one or more paid editors working on this. Here’s some evidence:

In the article talk page under the heading “Corrected current occupation +2 small changes elsewhere,” 10Sany1? is giving directions to Webmaster862, telling that person what changes to make. Example: “I also think it makes sense to limit the "downplay" of the prestigious nature of the Yale invite, as the refeerence provided clearly indicates the prestige here. As per WP:UNDUE the article should be balanced -- not a negative slant -- and these citations represent that. Please check it out. 10Sany1? (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)”

Those are orders to puff it up.

Report sockpuppetry at WP:SPI, not here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, 10Sany1? and Katine67 are the same person. Look at Katine67 interests. They were identical to 10Sany1? interests until they noticed and went in and changed 10Sany1? interests to history buff. Go into 10Sany1? profile history and it’s obvious it was a direct copy. Katine67 identify’s herself elsewhere as a paid freelancer too.

What’s funny about this is they had worn me down. I became an editor because I wanted to edit articles on old buildings, British car companies and investment banks. I didn’t become an editor to be beaten up in a constant barrage of personal insults and to argue based on someone that appears to be polishing up their resume. I was just going to let it drop and move on to something more productive and less abusive.Then I saw the notice of dispute resolution and got fresh personal attacks on my Username Talk Page, so here we are.

I acted in good faith, attempted to be collaborative (to no avail) and tried to keep it courteous. I have no qualms about putting this in the dispute resolution teams hands.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Jill Kelley discussion[edit]

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

The article is clearly a puff piece. It's one of the most blatant ones I've seen. Beach drifter (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Mòjiāng virus[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Shturmavik71 on 20:52, 15 November 2020 (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

As the world is searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, some evidence (sources in the article) points to a connection to an earlier 2012 outbreak in Mòjiāng, China. briefly, in 2012 six miners got sick from an unknown pathogen. this caused interest in several virology groups, one of which identified the mentioned Mòjiāng virus or MojV, in the same mine. the paper's authors acknowledge that no medical connection exists between MojV and the sick miners (in fact it is not known to infect humans). this is related to SARS-CoV-2 as RatG13 the closest genetic relative to it was identified by a different group (Shi zhengli's) in the same mine (well documented). The page was created in May 2020 by [Henipa], and worded in a way that implied that MojV is the pathogen related to the outbreak. I've added background information clarifying the connection between the subjects. but it was removed. I've added a short clarification, that the connection between the topic(MojV) and SARS-CoV-2 possible origins, relates to being sampled from the same mine. but it was removed and replaced with a laconic mention of covid conspiracy theories.

While I'm not an expert in the field, it seems to me that MojV is of secondary interest, as it does not infect humans. and It's my suspicion, that it was created at this time to intentionally obfuscate the more important facts about the outbreak. and I believe it's important that it's relationship to other facts surrounding that outbreak be made clear.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Mòjiāng_virus I believe we have come to a consensus with Henipa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shturmavik71 (talkcontribs) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm looking for community input on the matter. I've started editing that page, as I was looking for information about those events. and after reading a few external sources, it seemed to me that the Wiki deliberately confuses the reader with regards to MojV.

Summary of dispute by Henipa[edit]

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

I created Mòjiāng virus (MojV) because it is a neglected henipavirus of major import, of which humans are a known susceptible host. Pathogenic henipaviruses are highly transmissible and uniformly lead to respiratory failure and acute meningoencephalitis with case fatality rates averaging 40-90% depending on the outbreak. They are uniquely devastating to developing rural communities where they are most common. There is very little known about MojV specifically compared to the prototypic Hendra and Nipah viruses which is why I feel it is necessary to have clear and scientifically accurate information available on wikipedia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been several unrelated conspiracy theories alleging laboratory escape of a sarbecovirus that ultimately became SARS-CoV-2. One of these conspiracy theories alleges that MojV was used by China as a "cover-up" for the conspiracy. In November 2020, User:Shturmavik71 vandalized Mòjiāng virus along with pages on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and linked multiple conspiracy theory sources. User:Shturmavik71 has vandalized these pages in such a way that purports this conspiracy theory as the dominant narrative. This has led to misinformation about both sarbecoviruses and MojV. I continue to revert these edits and use the official publications cited by ICTV in phylogenetic characterization.

Because User:Shturmavik71 does not dispute the official virology and phylogenetic classification of MojV as purported ICTV (except in human pathogenesis), just the details of the human outbreak, I suggested that they could make a separate article about the outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause. They disagreed on the basis that they believed me to be acting as a co-conspirator, and that an article on MojV itself is inherently misleading because an unrelated sarbecovirus was also isolated from the same site. Based on all available information regarding the pneumonia outbreak of unknown etiology and the viral isolates from the environment, it is known that the miners likely did not die from sarbecovirus infection. However, MojV was not isolated when the miners were being treated and they were not tested before they died. Thus it was impossible to know if they were MojV infected. For this reason, it is proactively important to have accurate information about MojV so that the next time this happens we can understand the disease, effectively diagnose and treat those who may be infected. Henipa (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411[edit]

My involvement here was mainly based on my concern that Shturmavik71 was including links to non-MEDRS websites that suggested that SARS-CoV-2 originated in the mine in Mojiang, and possibly had some connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (which has been the subject of persistent conspiracy theories since SARS-CoV-2 emerged). Whatever information is included at Mòjiāng virus, it should be based on scientific publications, and the article should not be used to advance conspiracy theories about SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mòjiāng virus discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed the other editors. After the other editors are listed, they should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Mòjiāng)[edit]

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules, and follow the rules. You are expected to know what the rules are. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want kept the same? The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If you want to respond to each other, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Statements in the space for statements should be addressed to me, and to the community, not to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Mòjiāng)[edit]

Back-and-forth discussion[edit]

.

Talk:Wow! signal[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ExoEditor on 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC).

Dimethyl Ether[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by XTLExpert001 on 21:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC).

2020 Delhi Riots[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 223.186.58.66 on 21:29, 22 November 2020 (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

There is a line about "a man, allegedly from the anti-CAA Side." I have provided verifiable and reliable references that clearly identify the man as Shahrukh Pathan. Yet, for some reasons, the moderators are adamant about not naming him in the page. I do not understand the reason to refer to him as "a man" when is identity is on the public domain and he was caught on camera and has been identified beyond all doubts.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots -:Ambigious sentence to absolve a criminal

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Verify the references i have provided and also check if the moderator-SlaterSteven, is adhering the NPOV policy of the page by refusing to add the name of the criminal, because according to him he is not a popular public figure.

Summary of dispute by SlaterSteven[edit]

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

One. We are not moderators. Two, the man has been charged, but there has been no conviction. Three, He is just one (as far as I can tell wholly) insignificant rioter.

As such it may fail wp:undue it does fail wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Note I was not informed of this, and the IP is an IP hopper, so it was only by checking that IP's edit history (they are a wp:spa, its why I was checking) I stumbled upon this DR request, I have also informed the other involved Editor.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 331dot[edit]

I too was not informed until SlaterSteven told me. The article at issue is particularly controversial among editors familiar with the event many of whom are trying to whitewash it towards one side or to a lesser degree the other. The only dispute here is by editors seeking to ignore WP:BLP when it suits them and follow it when it doesn't. Anyone who becomes familiar with the dispute will get a good education as to religious intolerance and bigotry in India. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi Riots discussion[edit]

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

Sucharit Bhakdi[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gcmackay on 11:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC).

Ahmose-Nefertari[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Khruner on 19:29, 23 November 2020 (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

Different interpretations of sources regarding the meaning of the black skin color in the depictions of ancient Egyptian queen Ahmose-Nefertari. "Classical" sources (as well a some considered non-mainstream by today standards) see this as a clear sign that she was of black African ethnicity; more modern sources, however, argued that the black color of the queen's skin has a religious meaning (she was deified shortly after death and regarded as a goddess of underworld and resurrection). Particular sources of discord lie in the interpretation of an ambiguous sentence by Egyptologist Alan Gardiner (quoted in the discussion) which can apparently be used to support both hypotheses, and the use of sources which generally claims that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks, in order to indirectly support the "ethnically black" hypothesis (which I'm not sure but may well be Synthesis).

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari#November_2020_edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Providing external judgment and ensure there are no guideline violations. Hopefully helping to avoid an incoming edit war and achieve a deserved consensus.

Summary of dispute by Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Wdford[edit]

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

Ahmose-Nefertari discussion[edit]

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