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)