Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Makka Pakka

Request details
Despite attempts at engaging dialogue surrounding multiple unexplained reverts to article Makka Pakka, an editor seems insistent on maintaining a separate article for this childrens' TV character, in my view in the face of Wikipedia guidelines on notability. The article also contains a very strange comment "PS: Don't Delete or redirect this article", which seemed to imply ownership.

What's going on?
On finding the separate article for Makka Pakka on 30 June, I checked Wikipedia guidelines for notability and concluded that the subject did not perhaps justify a separate article. Being bold, I redirected the article to In the Night Garden with a full justification in the Talk:In the Night Garden talk page of that article. This edit was almost immediately reverted by editor 83.217.165.174, without explanation in edit summary or discussion pages.

I again explained what I felt were the criteria for merging on the In the Night Garden talk page and reimplemented the redirect. Once again, it was reverted by the same editor within 24 hours without justification or explanation.

Even though I felt this was a pretty watertight case, at this point I sought a third opinion thinking that, as it is hard to debate a situation when one party refuses to speak up, perhaps another opinon would make this editor see that this was not just one person's crusade against "their" article.

With third opinion given, I again redirected the article only to find that 83.217.165.174 reverted it within 48 hours. At this point I started to look at how the situation could be resolved, not having been involved in any kind of edit war before. As far as I can see, this is the next logical step.

What would you like to change about that?
I'm hoping that the weight of consensus will make 83.217.165.174 see that the article they are so protective over does not perhaps meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia guidelines.

Mediator notes

 * Case submitted. juux  ☠ 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
This IP address is likely dynamically assigned within the UK, so I figure that any reverts to redirects will be coming from a different IP. I'd be bold and try again until the anon actually discusses - this time, leave a message on his talk page (not a template) directing him or her here :-) It'd be rather disruptive if the anon didn't talk at all. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked for 6 months, so I guess we can close this case. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)