Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly universe

The "what's going on section" is not the place for you to already assert that you are right and we are wrong. Statements like "Editors arguing against a merge while not improving the articles neither work collaboratively and constructively to resolve the underlying content dispute" are highly inappropriate. I would respond with the opposite: "Editors who demand that change must occur immediately, from those who assert that it is possible, neither work collaboratively and [sic] constructively to resolve the underlying content dispute." I'm surprised by the lack of judgment you're using here. If you want to go into mediation, you're going to have to be willing to compromise. Consensus is not a big stick that you wield, reigning down on "local fan consensus." --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence you object to was in reference to the recent arbcom case. And I seriously doubt that going to medcab after 7 weeks without the articles showing any improvement would be considered "immediately". Interested editors had their chance and they didn't take it. That is not my mistake but there's. Going to dispute resolution has been suggested much earlier, and if your assertions are right, this case will confirm the local fan consensus, so what is there to be afraid of? – sgeureka t•c 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you continue to bog down editors with endless procedure and bureaucracy, and the also complain that your imaginary timeline is up. There is no time limit on improving articles, and we've established that there is easily room to expand these into meaningful articles that fit even your standards. But you complain that time is up. To quote what I said earlier on the talk page: I'm astounded that "no timetable" and "this is very frustrating" are being used as a defense for dragging out this issue, when "no timetable" and "this is very frustrating" are exactly why we should move past the merge discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also no deadline to create articles that don't unambiguously establish their notability. Time is up for discussion to find a result, not for improving these articles. My all means, if you want to improve the article, go ahead. I'm not preventing anyone from doing that, but I am against leaving articles in a mess when easily available messures are available for cleanup. – sgeureka t•c 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, not everybody works on the same timetable as you. I'm all for motivating improvement, and I've AfD'd articles that make no assertion of notability, but people have already fixed some of the articles. People are working or will work on the others, and we've already established that this improvement is possible. The notability is not in question, it's the quality of the articles and how they demonstrate that notability, and that is something you should be waiting to fix. What's funny to me is how you're characterizing this as some sort of easy way to fix everything up. Consensus is not with you - dragging out these disputes when you're trying to take measures to temporarily fix the problem in a way that pleases you, but not others, is ridiculous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I disagree with almost everything you just said (which has been the case for the past seven weeks), I believe it is time to hand this over to mediation. Which is what I did. I will argue the points of existing guidelines no further unless someone can show that it's alright to let poor articles sit around forever, and preventing others from getting involved in cleanup. Good night. – sgeureka t•c 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it with your rhetoric? "I will argue the points of existing guidelines no further unless someone can show that it's alright to let poor articles sit around forever, and preventing others from getting involved in cleanup." I could come up with a similar quip about you. Please show a little more good-faith, both in what you contribute, and in what you presume of others. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)