Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-08 Cell (Dragon Ball)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Cell (Dragon Ball) |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Collectonian (talk · contribs) JJJ999 (talk · contribs) Lord Opeth (talk · contribs) |
| Mediator(s) | Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | Adopted |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Cell (Dragon Ball)]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Cell (Dragon Ball)]]
Request details
[edit]Who are the involved parties?
[edit]- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
- JJJ999 (talk · contribs)
- Lord Opeth (talk · contribs)
What's going on?
[edit]Discussions regarding the mergers of some individual articles into a List of characters began on September 11th. and must of them were closed after only 4 or 5 days. Some discussions like Tien Shinhan or Cell were closed with no clear consensus but with a "Resolved" tag claiming that the result was to merge according to consensus. I then proceeded to RfC. The article then was taken to AfD by Collectonian (see AfD discussion), although the merger discussions have not yet finished. It is the 2nd nomination after only 4 months (see the previous nomination).
- I would like to add that there was no notice on the talk page for the merge discussion, so while a number of us waited in good faith for Collectonian and his small posse to reply, they were off trying to circumvent the discussion with an AfD it took a few days to notice.JJJ999 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There is no rule that the merge "discussions" had to finish before an AfD, particularly when the discussions were derailed by user JJJ999's making vicious and unfounded personal attacks against those supporting the merge on the list talk page (and continuing to do so in both AfDs). There were no inappropriate actions happening here at all. The discussion was taken to a more neutral and wide reaching area after the accusations that doing a merge discussion on the talk page was "submarine tactics" instead of in an AfD (by JJJ999's own words). You might also note that the only closings of the discussions being argued against are those that these two particular editors don't support. Nor is there any requirement to post a notice to the List of characters talk page about an AfD on another article. The appropriate notices were put on the article, in the project deletion list, and to the creator pages. With all the bad faith thrown around by these two editors, particularly JJJ999, it seems to me that neither will be satisfied with any discussion anywhere that does not end in a keep. The AfD is obviously headed towards merge, so now they are finding another way to attempt to invalidate the discussion rather than just accepting the consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AfD will finish with keep, just like all the other ones. People just need time to get sources and for the people you failed to notify off the merge to come give their input. Also, I seem to recall 2 independent admins chastising you for inappropriate closures, so don't give me this "everything was done correctly" speel.JJJ999 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- See the instructions above, this isn't for discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why are we wasting a cabal's time with this crap? The article is merged, and no amount of kicking and screaming will change that. Suigetsu 01:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Suigetsu, please observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- relevance? I also find it odd how you direct that comment at me and not JJJ, who posted essentially the exact same comment, except less coherently and promoting the other side of the argument. Suigetsu 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- JJJ999, please stop with the personal attacks on Collectonian. Taking an article to an AfD means getting the opinions of the wider community, not just those who are interested in this particular article, minimising bias. This I entirely support. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Suigetsu, please observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why are we wasting a cabal's time with this crap? The article is merged, and no amount of kicking and screaming will change that. Suigetsu 01:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- See the instructions above, this isn't for discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AfD will finish with keep, just like all the other ones. People just need time to get sources and for the people you failed to notify off the merge to come give their input. Also, I seem to recall 2 independent admins chastising you for inappropriate closures, so don't give me this "everything was done correctly" speel.JJJ999 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
[edit]I would like mediators to comment if the whole procedures (closing the mergers discussions without clear consensus but claiming consensus, and nominating AfD ignoring the merger discussions, which they initiated and which have not finished) are based on policies and guidelines.
Mediator notes
[edit]Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) has adopted the case. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) has closed this case due to lack of interest on the part of those participating. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes
[edit]Discussion
[edit]- Please note: A DRV was listed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell (Dragon Ball) AfD2. -- Suntag ☼ 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the DRV closed upholding the AfD closure. JJJ999 has now started a new discussion at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Unmerge Cell demanding that the article be unmerged and continuing to claim that the AfD closure was wrong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)