Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desiphral

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:23, April 7, 2007), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

Desiphral (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Desiphral has been ignoring clear consensus and repeatedly inserting original research into articles related to the Romani language and Roma people--in particular those two articles plus Romani writing systems.

Desired outcome[edit]

Ideally, Desiphral would wait for consensus for controversial changes (especially if consensus has already been clearly against those changes in the past), avoid injecting original research and his personal point of view into articles (even if he's correct), and thoroughly sourcing his edits in the future (with reliable, published sources). He has made many, many good edits, though, so I don't anticipate more serious steps being needed.

Description[edit]

Desiphral was for a while using the Devanagari script to write in the Romani language on Wikipedia pages (for example: [1], [2], [3]), and when he created the page Romani writing systems, he placed a great deal of emphasis on Devanagari (earliest version: [4]). Finally, on the first of February of this year, Dewrad questioned whether anyone besides Desiphral, and perhaps a handful of other people, actually uses Devanagari to write Romani ([5], [6]). Desiphral removed the {{fact}} tag without comment ([7]), multiple times in fact ([8], [9]), and when others added a disputed tag to the article in response, he repeatedly removed that as well ([10], [11], [12]). In his arguments on the talk page, he never once provided actual sources for his claims that Devanagari was commonly used to write Devanagari, and in fact seemed to suggest that it wasn't commonly-used ([13]), but that it was being given undue weight because he personally thought it better-suited to writing Romani (OR and POV, e.g. [14] and [15], which was responded to by an anon here: [16]). Node ue, Dewrad, and anon repeatedly requested sources ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), but none were provided. Finally, in early March, Dewrad made a proposal in which he gave Desiphral until the end of March to come up with a reliable published source, and if none was provided, he would remove all mention of Devanagari from the article ([24]; the "improval" he mentions is [25], which was fully-sourced). Others supported Dewrad's plan and edits ([26], [27]).

After that point, Desiphral completely ignored both the article and the talk page; he made no new edits to Romani writing systems, nor did he even respond to the comments on the talk page any longer. On March 30th, Dewrad put a reminder on the talk page that there was one day left to find sources ([28]), and Bogdangiusca removed the mention of Devanagari ([29], [30]). Then on the first of April, Node ue responded to some of Desiphral's month-old comments, and the two got into an argument of sorts on the talk page, which Dewrad attempted to stop (and simultaneously explain, once again, why the inclusion of Devanagari was inappropriate: [31]). Desiphral then used a new line of argument (see Talk:Romani_writing_systems#Node_and_Desiphral), and without waiting for a full response to his arguments, let alone consensus, earlier today he re-added Devanagari to the Romani writing systems article ([32]), the Roma people article ([33], [34]), and the Romani language article ([35]), which have been reverted (e.g. [36]), and Dewrad has warned Desiphral again on the talk page (Talk:Romani_writing_systems#Hold_your_horses.). Roma people and Romani language have now been protected ([37]), though Romani writing systems has not.

There has also been a recent dispute over the Latin spelling of Romani words as well, in which Desiphral has again ignored consensus and failed to provided reliable published sources (the discussion can be found at Talk:Romani_writing_systems#Node_and_Desiphral and Talk:Romani_language#Orthography, Desiphral's edits include: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]). --Miskwito 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questionable exposition and use of Devanagari for writing Romani is universal on the Romany Wikipedia. In fact the search function used thereon only allowed search queries to be typed in Devanagari until recently. Unless some evidence is produced that Devanagari is a legitimate writing system for Romani, I view this as serious, if not not more serious, an issue as the disturbances relating to the Romani articles on the English wikipedia. --70.53.123.7 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this is the English Wikipdedia and unfortunately not the appropriate place to discuss disputes related to other Wikipedias. That is best handled on the Wikipedia-l mailinglist or on Meta. --Node 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

No Original Research
Neutral Point of View (especially No Undue Weight)
Consensus

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Repeated warnings not to remove fact and totallydisputed tags (in edit summaries):
1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
Repeated requests for sources:
1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]
6. [57]
7. [58]
Warning that he has a month to find a source
Warning that he has a day left to find a source
Explanation for why the inclusion of Devanagari was inappropriate
Discussion warning Desiphral to gain consensus and use reliable sources befor making changes
Repeated warnings to gain consensus and use reliable sources before making changes (in edit summaries):
1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]
6. [64]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Miskwito 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dewrad 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Node 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Tzinacan 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Tyers · 12:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I'm responding, but I don't see how my answer would solve the structural problem that caused this issue (and the direction of this Rfc). Namely, that there are areas in real life poorly covered by written sources, areas that would deserve too a place at Wikipedia. It seems that their presentation may go in the direction of outsiders interested in this issue, but not strongly concerned about it, or in the direction of insiders who have their identity at stake because of how their image would appear (insiders who tend to be less in number, since they are not integrated in the Wikicentric world, fact related to the issue of the poorly covered area). After some years of Wikipedia's evolution, it is obvious that not everything in this world can be easily explained and presented, currently there are unfolding many other battles about the right presentations in the articles, since the very fact of presenting something involves some decisions, some selections. Personally, I see no solution, so, as you can see already, I am not involving in such issues until I'll have a strong backing.
I thought I was pretty clear that I am pro communication and consensus, against adding unsourced info, giving undue weight and that also I don't consider the direction of this Rfc as a solution, as creating consensus. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in future we can rely on you to not add unsourced additions to articles, nor give undue weight to a minority orthography by including it all over the place? Dewrad 16:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baka man 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

Desiphral has provided resources and citations to attest to the use of nagari amoung gypsies. Rather this seems like a way to attack the lone roma contributor on wiki.

I have responded on the talk page --Miskwito 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Baka man 00:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Eukesh 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I think that Miskwito has made it clear that Devnagari is used although rarely and hence is not an original research of Desiphral. A language with much illiterate population and no central body has a tendency to develop in many directions. I think that rather than excluding Devnagari, inclusion of Cyrillic and other forms of writing should be done so that Roma people anywhere in the world can use the Roma wikipedia with ease. Wikipedia, I believe, is not about restricting knowledge by unilateral use of single script but about sharing knowledge. If knowledge can be shared by use of different scripts, its better to use them all. For the problem of Romani main page, a solution of multiscript like the one in Chinese or Kazakh can be worked out. Thank you.--Eukesh 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Hi Bakasuprman, it would be helpful if you could tell us which sources he cited. I don't know about other people here, but I have no problem with Roma people and in fact think it would be beneficial to the English Wikipedia if we had more Roma contributors. I have followed all of the discussions and I could see no sources cited for the use of Devanagari except his own blog (for the record, Alin Dosoftei = Desiphral; this is proven by archives of wikipedia-l) and the Romani Wikipedia, which he has himself written almost entirely anyhow. --Node 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I also responded on the talk page, since I wasn't sure if I was supposed to do that there or on this main page here. --Miskwito 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Eukesh[edit]

First off, thanks for commenting. I'll accept now that a handful of people have actually used Devanagari to write Romani, since Ian Hancock has mentioned that. However, that doesn't change the fact that: (a) Desiphral never actually gave a source for that fact until as I was actually writing this RfC, so I didn't know that at the time, (b) Desiphral never gave any sources for that during the two months he had to find them, (c) Desiphral ignored consensus by repeatedly putting that information on the pages in spite of the fact that a number of people objected to him doing so, and (d) as soon as Dewrad made a concrete proposal for how to address the issue, Desiphral, though continuing to edit Wikipedia, completely ignored the page. Because, as has been mentioned by others in this debate with Desiphral already, the issue is not whether or not what he claims is true, it's whether that fact is referenced--which it wasn't until a few days ago, and even then Desiphral did not wait for consensus before adding the information back to the article.

There's an additional problem, though, which is that, though we now have a reference showing that a few people have used Devanagari to write Romani, we still don't actually have any proof at all that anyone but Desiphral has ever used Desiphral's system (as Dewrad points out here). The single reference to mention Devanagari gives no detail about the specifics of the system(s), so, essentially, Desiphral still hasn't demonstrated that his use of Devanagari isn't original research, because there's no indication that it's not just a system he made up himself. Again, I'm not necessarily disputing that what he says may be true, but that's not really what this RfC is about anyway--it's about his behavior in ignoring consensus and his disregard for Wikipedia policies by refusing to cite the material he adds to articles. --Miskwito 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the other problem with Desiphral's use of Devanagari is that it gives UNDUE WEIGHT to what is at best a marginal writing system for Romani. If the Romani encyclopedia ought to be dual-script, the two scripts should be Latin and Cyrillic, the latter for the sake of Russian and related Romani populations.

Likewise, a minimally (and never in published writing) used script should not be in Romani articles left right and centre, as though it were the official script. And that is precisely what Desiphral has been doing in Romani Language and Romani Writing Systems here on the English wikipedia. --70.53.122.239 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Desiphral[edit]

Just to clarify, the nub of your argument seems to be that we should waive WP:ATTRIBUTION in this case. Am I correct? How does this address your conduct as outlined in this RfC? What are your responses to the actual issues raised by this RfC? What will be your conduct in the future: will you continue to add things that are unsourced, against consensus and give undue weight? Dewrad 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten days later, it looks like Desiphral will not respond to my questions. In order to acheive some sort of reassurance about Desiphral's future actions (so that the Romani language article can be unlocked), I would urge him to respond. Dewrad 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.