Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-07 Tien Shinhan

Let's begin
Okay, I've read the comments here and here. When reviewing the merge discussion, there doesn't appear to have been a consensus for the merge. I agree with AnmaFinotera that those !voting to keep generally didn't give any reasons why the article should be kept. However, there was not a clear consenus to merge, either, so it appears the article should have been left as it was (default to keep with no consensus, which is the general rule). Please post your comments here. Please keep them focused on the issue rather than other editors involved. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also read the deletion discussion, which was a royal mess. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the AfD being a giant mess, and also that there was no clear consensus regarding the merge. Since the result of the AfD was a "do not delete", and the article has been kept at it's current state, I don't think there's really be a need for this mediation. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I'd rather not waste people's time (including my time). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the AfD did not close as a "do not delete" with the order to discuss merging on the list talk page, does a third discussion now need to be restarted regarding Tien Shinhan? I personally thought the AfD was a clear merge same as Cell's, but if not, we need to know so we can have round three in the list (joy joy) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As no answer was given, I've gone ahead and started a new merge discussion at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's inappropriate because you're trying to disenfranchise the people who gave input only a few weeks ago, and who believe this was probably all settled. To try and bypass their views by "restarting" a discussion from only a few weeks ago is against the entire aim of consensus.  Since you refused to close the previous discussion either way, the discussion should continue from there. If anything, you should have to wait before reviewing the issue, as per your claim vis the cell AfDJJJ999 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not inappropriate. YOU yourself had the original merge discussion invalidated. And as the AfD was closed with "discussion on the talk page" rather than a straight merge or keep, a new discussion is fully appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You closed that discussion as merge. I challenged the result.  2 Admins overturned it.  Discussion resumed.  You were unhappy with the way the discussion was going, so to circumvent it you went to AfD.  the AfD called for discussions to resume on the talk page.  It certainly didn't call for the old discussion to be abandoned.  It's a flat out lie to suggest you closed the discussion.  Indeed, you left the "merge discussion" link on Tien's page, and when I removed it you undid my revision (and then pupported to create a "new" discussion).  You also asked various admins (unsuccessfully) to have the AfD discussion added on to the merge discussion on the talk page.  Nice try.JJJ999 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop forum shopping. Stick to one place. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)