Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations

Mediation Case: 2006-06-07 The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: KXL 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations and its brother pages for other years/volumes.


 * Who's involved?
 * Me (KXL) and I the rest of Wikipedia.


 * What's going on?
 * This page and its brothers were tagged for deletion. There was a vote and the consensus was to move it to WikiBooks.  I began that process (I am the creator of these pages), but was informed by WikiBooks that they didn't want them either.  They consider them "a series of footnotes."


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Can we please just leave them where they are? I feel that my annotations are a truly useful tool and take full advantage of the Wiki system by providing links to fuller entries.  I'd like to have the "Move to WikiBooks" banner removed and maybe some official statement posted on the pages saying, "These pages have alrady been reviewed and found acceptable.  Do not request further deletion or a move."


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.


 * Not yet. I am new and just learning the ways of Wiki.

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion
Hi unfortunately I cannot mediate this myself because I am quite busy at the moment but something occured to me:
 * could you not create an article called (for example)The Complete Peanuts (Comic-strip)) and then have each of the annotations as sub-pages (eg: The Complete Peanuts (Comic-strip)/Annotations 1953-54) Linked to from the main page. TBH I dont think this can really be mediated as there is no specific person(s) on the 'opposing' side of the argument with whom to have the discussion, I think the only problem seems to be the lack of an article about the Peanuts books themselves -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

KXL: I'd be happy to do that, BUT I suspect that the same person who complained about the annotations in the first place would just complain again. Several folks don't seem to like the idea of annotations existing in Wikipedia. What I need is an official ruling from the Wiki Powers That Be that these annotations are OK are may indeed exist in this space. 7 June 06

I'm also unsure it can really be _mediated_ though you are welcome to whatever I have that is useful ... I think the work is interesting, and exactly the sort of thing the Web should contain. Somewhere...  Is it impossible to publish it, say on a personal website, or the site of a local authority or organisation? It certainly looks to me like a good reference to be pointed to from the main Peanuts article, then, the more so the more reputable the site it ends up on. A discussion page does show that it has benefitted from the wiki environment, so perhaps one of the other wiki projects - forks of WP or similar things set up with different aims might be a possibility. The Powers that Be are everyone, so there isn't an appeal to authority to be had. You might want to make a backup copy on a local drive... There is user space - IE within a large area of reason, you can put in your user space anything generally encyclopaedic that you want... Midgley 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ill try and talk to a few admins on your behalf if you wish KXL. TBH us mediators arn't the 'powers that be' just ordinary foplks so we cant give a definitive answer, on the other hand I suspect that (as you have a reasoned argument and clear non-vanity aim) most of the mediators who take a look at this will agree with your viewpoint.
 * I personally know very little about the Peanuts anthologies but if you want to get in touch with me on my talk page (or by email: morton (dot) thomas (at) googlemail (dot) com) with all the relevant info I will happily help you create the page and move your annotations to sub-pages. I will even create the page if you like and 'take the flack' (I seem to be doing that more and more nowadays :-P). Let me know what you think - it seems a shame to waste your efforts. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

KXL: Clearly there are some "powers" since someone received the initial complaint that it was inappropriate material, and someone put up the "Tagged for deletion" note, and then, after the discussion/vote someone put up the current tag. I don't have a personal web space, and Wiki was my first thought when I decided to start this. Yes, I would appreciate you talking to admins on my behalf. 8 June 2006.


 * I'll see what I can do, probably not till tomorrow though, I am out t diner tonight! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already told KXL that I would be happy to take the pages on my wiki, WikiKnowledge, if he/she will release them into the Public Domain. As for their fate here on Wikipedia, the pages should probably be run through WP:AFD again with a note saying that they cannot be moved to Wikibooks. Gerard Foley 23:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Powers
 * Really there are not. KXL, if you hit the random page link on the left of the page until you find a page that you think is rubbish, there doesn't need to be anyone else involved for you to mark it AfD.  The only power restricted to (rather a lot of) admins is the power to actually delete the page if there is a consensus (not a majority) for deletion. There is an account of the mechanics of the process along with a stack of essays about what tends to get deleted and what doesn't at WP:DEL (see the links at the bottom).  But it is not for nothing that the admins' badge is a mop and bucket, there isn't arbitrary power to exercise. Midgley 00:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

KXL says Everything on hold KXL: 9:40 pm 9 June 2006:  Just in case, I contacted the publishers, Fantagraphics, and they said that they would consider hosting the annotations at their web site. NO PROMISES, but they're looking into it. This would remove the "wiki" aspect of it, but may be a solution. My take on the GFDL is that we would still be able to use the links into Wikipedia if used Wiki's boilerplate. Is that right?