Talk:Yoichi Asakawa

Concern over potential edit war

Onel5969 Darkknight2149: I've decided to go ahead and get you both involved in a conversation here (instead of just using edit summaries) to attempt to resolve the edit war over a potential redirect due to lack of sources. I would advise you both to stop reverting (for now) to avoid further consequences and attempt to discuss (with others if necessary) the issue here. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 23:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no edit war, simply disruptive editing, I've explained in the edit summary and on my talk page that re-adding unsourced material us DE, and could get them blocked. I really don't want to report them at ANI, as per WP:DDE, but if they persist, I'll have no other option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liamyangll: As it stands, three separate talk page discussions have been opened ([1], [2], [3]), including on his own talk page. But as you can see here, onel5969 is unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion and is using Wiki-lawyering and intimidation tactics to keep his preferred edits in place. Even after his templates and redirects were challenged and discussions were opened, onel5969 has continued to reinstate them and made no attempt to gain consensus.

This started when I opened a discussion at Talk:Kayako Saeki, asking if anyone had a source verifying that the character is an Onryo. For whatever reason, Onel took this as an opportunity to go on a massive redirect/templating spree, essentially blanking or slapping a notability template onto every poorly-written Ringu and Ju-On article he could find. I went through and contested most of these templates/redirects for a couple of reasons:

1. Because of his faulty reasoning at Talk:Kayako Saeki, which implies that article content determines notability ([4], [5]).
2. Some of the articles that Onel is templating are questionable at best, for the reasons explained here.

However, Onel signed into his account the next day and began making his first wave of reverts ([6], [7], [8], [9]). Since then, Onel has ignored all attempts to discuss the issue (even on his talk page), instead edit warring to keep his revisions in place, refusing to seek consensus after being advised to, and making disenguous threats and accusations ([10], [11]). Because he has been editing Wikipedia since 2009, I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't know better.

Onel insists that, because two of the character articles are mostly plot summary backed by primary sources (and need to be rewritten), WP:BURDEN is a loophole for him to circumvent dispute resolution and the deletion process, and make as many reverts as he wants. Even though the initial concern was that the topics of these articles may be notable despite their quality. Of course, WP:BURDEN also doesn't cover his template-warring on articles such as Kayako Saeki, and if you read his statements at User talk:Onel5969#Kayako, he still thinks that notability is determined by the sources currently in the article.

@Onel5969: You have a single day to revert your edits and engage in dispute resolution. You can do this by replying to any of the discussions that are open, or by opening one of your own (such as a deletion or redirect nomination). If you refuse to do so (or reply with more fallacious finger-pointing), I'm reporting you for edit warring and incivility. To quote the warning I left on your talk page:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement... Do not edit war, even if you believe you are right.

WP:BRD also isn't a "guideline", as you claimed here. It's an explanatory supplement for WP:Consensus, which is a policy. WP:Edit warring is also a policy (and there is no exemption for what you're doing). WP:Dispute resolution is a policy. WP:PRESERVE is a policy (WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN are relevant guidelines). WP:DELREASON is a policy. Additionally, the guideline WP:GAME addresses your behaviour here. Darkknight2149 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Precisely, so glad you thoroughly explained that BRD is not the guideline, but a supplementary explanation, hence, not the guideline. If this was simply an edit war dispute, you are correct, DR would be the proper route. However, that is not the case, the policy takes precedent, and DDE would be the appropriate route. Which I would prefer not to subject you to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the policy that WP:BRD is explaining and this response (I'm sorry to say) is blatant lawyering mixed with WP:IDHT. These are the edit warring exemptions (gaming policy disagreements aren't one of them), so the warning stands. Darkknight2149 11:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't create the edit war by ignoring policy, and then chant "edit war". The policy is clear as per WP:DDE, which you are still clearly ignoring. If you want to go to ANI, fine, but I would prefer not to have to do that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You created an edit war by continuing to revert when your redirects and templates were challenged, and multiple policies have been pointed out to you that you are choosing to ignore. WP:BURDEN simply states that onus is on the person adding unsourced content into an article to cite a source. The problem with the two articles is specifically that they are WP:ALLPLOT backed by primary sources. But this is gaslighting anyway, because your original claim was that the topics weren't notable due to the current state of sourcing within the articles. No one's questioning that they need to be rewritten, only whether or not they pass the criteria for deletion.

WP:BURDEN is not a freebie for you to circumvent the deletion process by unilaterally redirecting an article and making as many reverts as you want without discussion. It damn sure doesn't excuse you repeatedly re-adding a disputed template to Kayako Saeki, even after the matter was brought to your talk page.

Then again, this was all explained to you in the comment above. Right now, you are deliberately refusing to get the point and are simply bouncing back to your previous claims. If this goes to ANI or the Edit Warring Noticeboard, I don't think it's going to end the way you think it will. Darkknight2149 12:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it is you who are refusing to get the point of policy. You cavalierly ignore BURDEN, simply because you feel it doesn't apply to you. I can self-revert, that's not the issue, but then you would have to self-revert, leaving my version as the last version. In addition, if I self-reverted, as per policy (WP:DDE), my recourse would be to take you to ANI. As I've tried to convey to you, I do not really wish to do that. But if not other option exists, than I will. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

↑ Liamyangll I hope you (and other passing editors) can see what I'm dealing with here. Unless Onel5969 wants to discuss this properly, there's nothing else I can say. Any response from him will inevitably be the same no matter what: "No, I can revert you as many times as I want and I don't have to discuss anything because of my misinterpretation of WP:BURDEN, which I also won't discuss. If you revert me because you challenged my templates and redirects (which were instated with paper-thin rationales), then you are violating WP:BURDEN and then I'll have to report you for an imaginary policy violation and then you'll get banned, so drop it!" My original warning stands. Darkknight2149 16:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbritary break

If there's no source, it's on the burden of the person restoring it to add a source. See WP:ONUS. If someone has challenged the material in good faith, it should not be added back without a citation. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN, and in particular Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I don't see how this is not clear. As for this warning, you might want to look at WP:DONTTEMPLATE. --John B123 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: @John B123: I don't think either of you actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs. This dispute has nothing to do with unsourced claims being added into an article. (Also see the policies I listed above). WP:BURDEN is a red herring that's currently being gamed by Onel5969. This situation actually started when I challenged an unsourced claim at Talk:Kayako Saeki, asking if there was any source for Kayako being an "Onryo" to see if I should remove it ([12]). For whatever reason, Onel took this as an opportunity to go on a bold redirect and templating spree, where he began redirecting or slapping notability templates onto every poorly-written or underdeveloped Ring and Ju-On article he could find. I ended up reverting and contesting most of these templates and redirects, because his reasoning was shaky at best ([13], [14]) and for the reasons outlined here. Not only were some of his article choices questionable (including the original Ringu novel and Kayako Saeki, one of Japan's biggest horror icons), but he also implies that article content determines notability (and again here) and admits that some of the pages that he redirected can be rewritten and improved.

The next day, Onel signed into his account and (without responding to the discussion at Talk:Kayako Saeki), began making his first set of reverts, claiming GNG based only on what's currently listed in the article ([15], [16], [17], [18]). Having already challenged those redirects (and because the matter was already on a talk page), I reverted while reminding him that article content doesn't determine notability; encouraging him to respond to the talk page discussion or take the matter to AfD ([19], [20], [21], [22]). I also went ahead and opened a second discussion on his talk page ([23]). Unfortunately, he responded with a barebones reply and began making a fresh set of reverts without discussing anything ([24], [25], [26]), essentially pulling WP:BURDEN out of his ass to circumvent the deletion/dispute resolution process. His argument is that, because two of the several articles he's edit warring on are WP:ALLPLOT with only primary sources referenced, BURDEN gives him a free pass to keep reverting on all of them without discussion (including re-adding a disputed template to the Kayako Saeki page after being advised to open an AfD). At this point, I reverted him again and warned him to stop edit warring and gain consensus ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). Onel responded by making another round of reverts and spurious allegations ([32], [33], [34], [35]). This was when Liamyangll opened this discussion here in a last ditch effort to sort it out.

Also note his self-contradictory gymnastics here: [36], [37], [38]

Attempting dispute resolution with Onel has been like talking to a brick wall:

• Onel: "Because of WP:BURDEN, I can reinstate already-contested templates/redirects as many times as I want and I don't have to discuss anything! If you revert me at all, you are being disruptive and you will be blocked! This isn't a genuine edit war, it's just the other guy being disruptive."
• Me: "That's not how WP:BURDEN works and here's a list of policies you are currently ignoring. There is also no edit war exemption for what you're doing."
• Onel: Right back to point #1.

(It should also be noted that WP:BURDEN does not protect his template edit warring at Kayako Saeki.) Onel5969 isn't even making a case for why the two articles fail GNG or deletion criteria at this point. Rather, he's trying to keep the redirects and templates in place on a false technicality. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like he's going to do stop and discuss the issue without administrator intervention. As for the talk page warning, Onel is being disruptive in a way that honestly makes me wonder if there's a potential WP:CIR issue. Darkknight2149 23:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced content is acceptable, and if you want to restore it, please add a citation. It's fine to redirect an unsourced article because the material is still in the page history in case anyone is able to source it. Notability isn't the issue in that case, verifiability is. (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: With all due respect, it really feels like you're just skimming through and responding without reading everything or understanding the situation.

• Only two of the several articles that Onel5969 that is edit warring on are lacking third party sources. Even if WP:BURDEN was an object here, that still wouldn't excuse his behaviour. BURDEN also doesn't refer to reinstating disputed templates.
• The issue isn't verifiability. The issue here (and the original explanation given by Onel) is notability and whether or not they are worthy of deletion.
• The two articles without secondary sources that he is blanking (and he's blanking more than that) are WP:ALLPLOT and fully backed by the primary sources talked about in the article. Articles shouldn't be all plot (necessitating a rewrite or an AfD), but this isn't a BURDEN issue. Primary sources are generally acceptable for plot summaries.
• His edit warring here is not protected by WP:3RRNO either.

Please look through the situation carefully before responding. Darkknight2149 00:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: @John B123: @Buidhe: To settle this, the policy WP:PRIMARY explicitly says,

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

The two articles in question are WP:ALLPLOT and require rewrites or AfDs. Despite Onel5969's intentional Wiki-lawyering to dodge discussion, WP:BURDEN doesn't apply here. There's no verification issue and his original claim was notability anyway.

And as previously mentioned, only two of the articles in question have no secondary sources. WP:BURDEN also has nothing to do with his template-warring at Kayako Saeki (and ignoring the attempts to discuss it on his talk page). The policies that Onel5969 is currently ignoring include WP:NEXIST, WP:BRD / WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Edit warring, and WP:Dispute resolution. As I warned yesterday, if Onel5969 makes no attempt to undo his reversions and get consensus by the time I wake up tomorrow, I'm reporting him for edit warring and spurious allegations. Darkknight2149 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you've now had 3 experienced editors explain it to you, and you still don't get it. I suggest you just simply let the matter drop.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Only two users have supported you so far and both of them seem to have skimmed through the thread without reading through everything. (One of them is also a past collaborator of yours [39] who may have found this discussion through your talk page, but I digress). Appealing to those two responses won't help you, because you (nor anyone else) still haven't justified:

1. How WP:BURDEN supports your template edit warring on this article.
2. How the articles you redirected fail WP:BURDEN in the first place (since they are WP:ALLPLOT verified by primary sources). It's possible that they fail WP:Notability (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), but they don't fail WP:Verifiability.
3. What edit warring exemption justifies your persistent reverts and refusal to discuss the issue, despite multiple attempts.
4. Why you claimed your original concern was notability, but then switched to verifiability as an excuse for more reverts.

I myself am an experienced editor with thousands of edits, multiple Good and Featured Articles, and a history of dealing with disruption, so you're not going to get anywhere with that. Policies speak louder than two user's input on a lifeless talk page. Here's some of the ones you're ignoring.

According to WP:PRIMARY:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

According to the warning template I dropped on your talk page:

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

According to WP:Edit warring:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

According to WP:Redirect:

Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

According to WP:Dispute resolution:

Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation. Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are invited to join a dispute will likely be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing. Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a Third Opinion (3O), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. Actual discussion is needed; discussion conducted entirely through edit summaries is inadequate. Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request.

Your rationales do not meet WP:DELREASON or WP:3RRNO.

According to WP:ATD:

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

According to WP:NEXIST:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

According to WP:PRESERVE:

As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page.

The ultimatum stands. Multiple attempts have been made to discuss the issue with you and you persistently refuse to engage in dispute resolution. There are also templates and deletion discussions for unsourced articles, WP:BURDEN is not a loophole for you to unilaterally redirect an article and circumvent the deletion process with unlimited reverts. I'm not sure what part of this you're having trouble comprehending. Darkknight2149 03:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: You mention the three article content retention policies; the issue here is verifiability and no original research. BilledMammal (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I don't mean any disrespect, but this is actually why I suggested that a couple of other editors may have skimmed through the thread. No offense, but this has already been addressed several times. As previously explained, the character articles that Onel5969 redirected here are pure plot summary cited by primary sources (meaning WP:Verifiability and WP:OR aren't relevant) and WP:BURDEN has jackall to do with Onel5969's template warring at Kayako Saeki anyway.

If you're referring to WP:NEXIST etc as the retention policies, (as previously demonstrated above) Onel5969's original reason for going on a template/redirect spree was that the current revisions of the articles were poorly sourced, therefore they fail WP:GNG. That shaky reasoning (coupled with the reasons mentioned at User talk:Onel5969) is why his edits were challenged and he was told to gain consensus. He switched his rationale to WP:BURDEN as an excuse to keep reverting. You also can't use BURDEN to override the deletion process. Darkknight2149 10:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I take offence with your insinuations that I haven't read through the whole of this and that I'm just supporting Onel5969 for some reason. You need to read WP:AGF. Issuing ultimatums is not the way Wikipedia works. Two uninvolved editors disagree with your arguments, so maybe it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --John B123 (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@John B123: Because you haven't said anything of substance or addressed any of the points raised. Given the in-depth breakdowns of policy and the legitimate refutations that have been presented, you need to provide something better than just "I agree with Onel5969." And bare in mind, this discussion is about a multi-article edit war, not just this article.

For example, how does WP:BURDEN excuse the template warring at Kayako Saeki? How is WP:BURDEN relevant to these redirects? These are all-plot articles cited by primary sources, so WP:VERIFY isn't an issue here. Are we going to ignore that Onel5969 admitted to redirecting and templating articles for notability reasons (against WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD) and then changed his rationale to WP:BURDEN as an excuse to keep reverting? (See the diff timeline at User:Darkknight2149/sandbox, which is being used for tomorrow's report.) What section of WP:3RRNO exempts Onel5969's edit warring and refusal to discuss? How do you address the multiple policies (quoted above) that Onel5969 has explicitly violated? What deletion criteria justifies edit warring with redirects? If nothing in the article is verifiable, that sounds like an WP:AfD or WP:PROD scenario or something that would warrant an "Unreferenced Article" template.

Contrary to what you might think, WP:BURDEN (or your interpretation of it) doesn't override WP:DELETE, WP:DELREASON, WP:EDITWARRING, or WP:Dispute resolution, let alone WP:PRIMARY. Darkknight2149 09:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)