This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • List of Ring characters Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:List of Ring characters |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
@ 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:
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. Dark knight 2149 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
@ 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. Dark knight 2149 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • List of Ring characters Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:List of Ring characters |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
@ 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:
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. Dark knight 2149 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
@ 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. Dark knight 2149 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.