Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedUser:Lucy-marie; User:Angelriver; User:Lquilter; User:asyndeton; User:TunaSushi; User:MiB-24; User:Lan Di; User:Steve Crossin
Mediator(s)Seddon69, (prev. DBD)
CommentMartha Logan - GA, AID set up at project

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

User:Seddon69/Userbox/MedCab Email

Request details

Parties taking part in this case

What are the articles involved?

Phillip Bauer‎, Mike Doyle (24 character)‎, Lynn McGill‎, Chase Edmunds, Martha Logan‎, Ryan Chappelle‎, ‎Nadia Yassir, Victor Drazen, and Edgar Stiles

What's going on?

There is a lot of heated debate regarding the merging of 24 characters and how the merged articles should read once they have been merged.

What would you like to change about that?

Policy and guileines of wikipedia must be upheld at all costs. The arguments presented by both sides must be weighed up by an independent party. This is to provide the most objective view point possible. There has been talk of a lack of consensus just because more people are saying the same thing. That must not be allowed to occur or else it just becomes mob rule, who shouts loudest wins and a democracy which is outlawed. A clean end to the discussions must be put and the appropriate actions taken.

Mediator notes


Discussion

OK so the boring bit is out of the way for now. I think that the first thing we need to look at is trying to get these articles sourced as well as possible. Not just information from the series but also from magazines, newspapers, web articles. Things which must be avoided are Blogs and forums. At the moment the only article which has been sourced to a good level is Nadia Yassir and that has recieved a clear community consensus to be kept and similar work needs to occur on the other articles. At the moment Phillip Bauer, Mike Doyle (24 character), Lynn McGill only have a single reference with Mike Doyle having little information in the article. Chase Edmunds and Martha Logan contain no sources at all. I think we should work together on the improvement of these articles and to help establish some real world notability. What do you all think? Seddon69 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is an excellent suggestion, I have no problem with that nor should any other editors. However, I think some people may not be happy. I agree, the Nadia Yassir page is excellent thanks to 2 people whom I will not name.--Lan Di (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning behind this is that notability and information doesn't always just jump out at us unless we all trawl the internet and magazine articles. I've had a lot of experience of this from working on hurricane articles where sometimes iv had to teach myself spanish to get information. What all parties must understand is that this isn't gonna be something thats just looking at the first 10-20 results on google but could take many hours of research. I personally wont be involved in the writing of the articles nor introducing sources to them but i will be conducting my own searches to provide sources for you to work with. Do you guys have a particular article that you would like to work on next. Seddon69 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, any sources from magazines, could you possibly scan the image and either email it to me or possibly upload it somewhere on the tinternet. Seddon69 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember reading something about Itzin and Smart, maybe something we can include in the article on Martha. I have two of the 24 magazines, I could order the rest through somewhere I think. There were interviews from Edgar, Raines, Martha, Charles, Nadia, Hayes, and Milo. There were others as well. I'd like to work on the Martha Logan article first. I feel she may be notable, but sources need to be provided. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok so are we all happy to start working on the Martha Logan first? What we need is sources providing notability from outside of 24 preferably from newspapers and magazines not directly associated with 24 but details about the characters can be used from sources like 24 magazine. Seddon69 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I've found some reliable sources for Martha Logan, and I think we would all agree they are reliable. There are more as well, but these are the ones I've gotten so far.

These are just four references, all from reliable sources, I am looking for more, and I will also work to have the article re-written ASAP. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats some good sources. I reckon we could find more with more time. Seddon69 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about Jean Smart being nominated, twice, for Emmy Awards (and IMHO being ripped off) for the role of Martha Logan should also go a long way as a nomination for Marisol Nichols did for the article on Nadia. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small query don't most of the sources establish notability for the actress rather than the character. Such as the title Smart as a nutter, this implies to me a source more aimed at the actress than the character.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the "Smart as a nutter" source, personally i feel it is directed the character itself. I do not wish to comment on whether awards to actors establish notability for characters but what i will say is this, I know of no awards which are awarded to characters directly. The awards are given to an actor for his performance as a certain character. For example the 2007 Academy Award for Best Actor went to Daniel Day-Lewis - as "Daniel Plainview." Seddon69 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The details about awards cannot be used on thier own but can be used in conjunction with other evidence. Seddon69 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read them too, as I found the sources. Personally, I think we could even get Martha Logan to a GA status, rather than merging it. The sources I mentioned above I feel would be valuable to the article, the one "The first lady is off her rocker" contains a lot of info we could use in the article. Anyway, I'm still working on it, but the info could be used in the "Casting and creation" and "Reception" sections. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one point, interviews with an actor about thier character do count as a source accourding to wp:fiction. Seddon69 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone come accross any other references? Seddon69 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll get them on here in a little while.

I don't have the links, but I do have the article names, dates, and writers. I used LexisNexis to find it.

  • '24's' First Lady Wonders About Her Finale: Associated Press Online, February 14, 2006, BRIDGET BYRNE
  • A new day for women of '24': no longer limited to victims or backstabbers, actresses now hold show's juiciest parts.: Daily Variety, SECTION: Pg. A12 Vol. 291 No. 48 ISSN: 0011-5509, June 8, 2006
  • Smart like a fox: VNU Entertainment News Wire, February 1, 2006, By JENELLE RILEY, Back Stage West

--Lan Di (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you could email them to me? Seddon69 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but Steve has copies of all the articles that I have given and it would be easier for him to get it, unless he deleted them from his computer. I deleted copies, but I can create new ones if I have to.--Lan Di (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I would like is for Lucy to respond regarding the Martha Logan article. I feel notability has been asserted here, and as such, should be looked at by her, and if she agrees, to have it struck from the case. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the same should be done with regard to the Nadia Yassir article, as there is no question regarding the relevancy of that article with regard to notability.--Lan Di (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think both articles should be "!voted" on, see if they're given the all clear, and then note that notability has been established. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, then we can move on to other characters, Edgar Stiles and Chase Edmunds should be the next target, as we can only do 1-2 at a time. Once those are done, we can do Ryan Chappelle‎ and Lynn McGill, then go for the rest.--Lan Di (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'll try to help as soon as this semester is over. Right now I just cannot spare a minute; these last 3 weeks of school are extremely demanding. --MiB-24 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Chase Edmunds are the following articles I found:

  • Chasing thrills: Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), April 21, 2004, By: Darren Devlyn SECTION: HOME ENTERTAINMENT GUIDE; Pg. H11
  • They'll be killing time, or each other: USA TODAY, October 28, 2003, By: Bill Keveney, SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 3D
  • A fourth '24': Time to save another day, Philadelphia Enquirer, JANUARY 9, 2005, By: Jonathan Storm, SECTION: FEATURES ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. H01
  • Lost boy is back for good: The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), February 26, 2004, By: ROBERT FIDGEON, SECTION: FEATURES-TYPE- FEATURE-COLUMN- 7 DAYS / SEVEN DAYS-BIOG- KIEFER SUTHERLAND; Pg. T24
  • Why doesn't Jack Bauer's cell ever run out of batteries?: And other queries for the writers of 24: National Post, January 30, 2006, By: Carey Gillette and Jonathan McDonald, SECTION: ARTS & LIFE; Pg. AL3
  • Jack faces a new day _ with all kinds of new dilemmas _ in '24': The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 29, 2003, By: Joanne Weintraub, SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
  • 24 promises new-season surprise: The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand), February 17, 2004, By: ?, SECTION: FEATURES; ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. 3

There are others, but these should do for now.--Lan Di (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I'll need copies of those, so I can try writing the article. Question I have, how do we cite LexisNexis? if someone could let me know, that would help. I can get the copy of the Herald Sun article, there is like 80 years or so worth of newspsapers in the State Libary archives. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LexisNexis is cited using the format I have just like newspapers, since that is where the articles come from. It uses a database that is combined of old newspaper, internet, and magazine articles, so you cite the original source.--Lan Di (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkup

  • I just wanted to get peoples opinions with how they feel this case is going and the way im doing this. Seddon69 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the actual question section o this medation now press ahead?--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although im unsure at this present time quite what you mean ill attempt to give an answer as best i can. As far as i am aware, regarding to the question that are in the standard case template are their to provide structure to an argument. Mediation isn't like arbitration, in that one mediation case differs from the next. I have taken your statement that you give in the template case layout and interpreted in an usual manner. Given that i do not have a good knowledge about 24 I needed to see cold hard facts. Something that wasn't present in the articles and so something i couldn't give a good judgment on. I don't know these characters and i couldn't tell you what my opinion was on them other than based on the article. I decided that the best way for this mediation to take place was by proving whether these articles have notability or not and that the only way you can do that is by getting sources. Notability can only be established from real world articles. This mediation request involved ensuring that the Policy and guidelines of wikipedia must be upheld at all costs and i saw no other better way that making these articles true to these guidelines. This helped identify those articles which were notable and those which weren't. I don't expect all of these articles to show that notability but from this method we have positively shown one character does have notability something which i couldn't see from the previous state of the article. This isn't something thats gonna be solved by simply arguing over it. This is gonna be solved by hard work. Its something that all the editors in this case and the 24 project need to get involved. Not just one or two. Hope that answers why im doing this method. Seddon69 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation needs to progress, certainly. However, at the present time, the issues that are being mediated are actively being worked on. Articles are being worked on. Recently, I, with some assistance from a 24 Wikiproject member, rewrote the Martha Logan article, and Lucy-marie has given it her OK. While I think that sounds like everything requires Lucy-marie's approval which it doesn't, as consensus within policy is what counts, and the Martha Logan article asserted notability per the policies that govern fictional articles. So, even if Lucy disagreed that the article was notable, if she thought otherwise, then policy would disagree with her. No disrespect intended at all Lucy, I am just stating the facts here :)

Another issue I am concerned with. There are 7 parties in this case, a few of which are active. However, I get the feeling I'm doing all the work, like here. It's all our job to help out writing these articles. There are nine articles under mediation, 2 have been cleared for keeping. And both were edited solely by me and Saranghae honey, who isn't even involved in this case. I cannot do this alone, yes, I might be the coordinator of the project, therefore, if the 24 articles stuff up, I pretty much carry the blame. However, I don't think I should be the one doing all the work, either. I'll continue working on the articles I can.

I've also made 2 templates, {{24Plot}} and {{24Trivia}} which also add the articles to a unique category in the Wikiproject 24 section, something handy I wrote with some template code :) So, in summary, I think the issue is still notability regarding the 7 remaining articles, but my patience is starting to wear thin. There is no way one editor can rewrite 7 articles, and find sources for the said articles, and I appreciate Lan Di's help with finding sources on LexisNexis, if you could email me the sources you mentioned above, I'd appreciate it a lot. So, the issue I see it here, is not only notability, but activity by other editors. This is a collaborative effort, lets all help each other out. Okay? Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 23:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve, we aren't all article writers, or researchers, but all of us have a responsibility to contribute in some way. I have done much research into the characters Nadia Yassir, Martha Logan, and Chase Edmunds, and when asked, I will do research for any character needed. Will this take a long time? Probably, but that does not make it invalid for doing so, as it is easier to establish notability with single articles, rather than articles that are together.--Lan Di (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator thoughts

Extended content

Now, this has been going on a fair while, and I, of course, have been watching — I have, however, been finding it rather hard to follow. As far as I have gathered, one particular member of our community's behaviour is being questioned. So, breaking down the two issues, in ascending importance, here are my suggestions:

  1. 24 characters — will be left, as far as this dispute is concerned, alone. If there is anyone who wants to merge/move articles, they will behave as usual — in essence, this dispute is retconned.
  2. Lucy will not be punished. As far as I can see, Lucy's actions are non-malicious, at best misguided. Therefore, she will be placed under an objective established editor's care. He or she will mentor Lucy in the manners in which business is conducted on this fine 'pædia.

Are we all amenable to these suggestions? DBD 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, as you are the mediator.--Lan Di (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by point 1: Do you mean that this mediation is not answering any questions regarding merging those character articles, or do you mean that this mediation is specifically finding that there shouldn't be merge, or do you mean something else? --Lquilter (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that this mediation is not ruling anything about the mergings. I would not be willing to, as I have next to no knowledge of this 24 programme. DBD 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A time frame for the establishment of notability needs to be given, to give final closure on these article and a grace period to find sources establishing notability (if any can be found). Thirty days has been mentioned and so has February 25 (thirty days from the original proposal of thirty days. I also do not understand what the second half of point two means.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my suggestion was that the articles be left as they are, the status quo, and then, if somebody other than and independent from you questions their location, discussions will be reopened. The second half of my second suggestion is that you are assigned a mentor, who will educate you in where you're going wrong, and how to fix that. I further advise that you self-impose a ban from editing 24 articles, just until your mentor is happy with your progress. What say you? DBD 14:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. DBD 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then Lucy, what exactly was the whole point of this exercise? --MiB-24 (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What it boils down to is the same as how it started out--it has to be done Lucy's way and that's all there is to it. There is NO collaboration where she is concerned. None. She's always right, and everyone else is always wrong. I'm sorry to say it, but I just don't see that changing. Angelriver (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse on principle to have mentor. I also dislike the status quo sentiment as it goes no where to resolving this dispute. This mediation is not about individual users it is about policy and guidelines, with regards to the merging of these articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen enough of your principles thankyou. Now, I can recommend you "take a break", or that you are mentored. It's entirely your choice. Also, I mean 'recommend' euphemistically. DBD 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apreciate your suggestion, but the reason the case was bought to mediation has been ignored and this has turned in to an "us vs her" situation which was not intended. The suggestions fall outside of the original reasoning as to why this was bought to mediation. The noatbiltiy of the articles with respect to the arguments raised on the talk pages was the reasoning and not the conduct of any individual user or group of users. Also if a self imposed ban it be requested of one user it should be requested of all users who are involved with this issue, or else it is double standards.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy, I mean what I'm about to say with all due respect, and I would like for you to try to realize that this is in no way a personal attack. I think everyone should re-read Tuna's original statements regarding this entire issue. When this whole debacle started, we TRIED working collaboratively with Lucy, and it was a complete failure. As Tuna said, she tried to force her writing style on the other editors; she tried to force her vision of the POV rules; she found fault with just about every one of our contributions to the articles, especially the Lynn McGill article. She began merging without consensus, became very verbally combative, and resorted to name calling and insults. Not one of the other editors resorted to calling her names even as she continued to do so. I wish it were possible to work with her, but I don't see that as a possibility.
Lan Di said that they had managed to work together lately peacefully, but from my perspective, it was because she was getting "her" way. In fact, in one comment that she made to Lan Di, she said that she wished that some of the other editors would "come down from their pedestals" and act like Lan Di. Now, I am not insulting Lan Di in anyway, but I felt that it was very one-sided on Lucy's part. I feel that we could produce source upon source upon source, and that Lucy will, at least attempt, to torpedo every one of them as she did my reference in the TV Guide article. The fact is, that whenever someone disagrees with Lucy, it turns into a battle where she assumes that it's personal and that she's being attacked. She doesn't work well with others, and this is not the first time it's happened. She has a history of these incidents. She claims that it's a "double standard" and yet she engages in behavior for which she chides everyone else.
I believe that Lucy brought this situation to mediation with the belief that it would go her way, and then she would have insisted that we abide by it. By refusing to, at least, discuss the mediator's suggestions, she proves once again that only her way of doing things is acceptable. I will continue to research the articles with full knowledge that it is probably an exercise in futility, and I would ask Lucy to really consider the mediator's suggestions objectively and try to see that she does have issues and that a mentor might be the best way to proceed in the future. Working collaboratively may not be an important issue to Lucy--she obviously doesn't even see the need for it, but I think it would go a long way towards helping her become more tolerant of other editors and their contributions. Angelriver (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood this mediation to be about the articles. Lucy marie was not alone in recommending or supporting significant edits and merges to the articles. So far as I can tell, Asyndeton, Segureka, Lan Di, миражinred, Mib-24, and I have made substantive comments, largely indicating that there need to be sources and/or improvements to the articles. Angelriver and Tuna Sushi have discussed primarily their issues with Lucy marie's behavior. I thought that was a distraction from the issue and wished we could focus on the issue as brought to the table. From my perspective, the initial detailed discussions of Lucy marie's behavior and character were inappropriate and derailed the productive discussion I had hoped this would become. Lucy marie most likely could certainly benefit from keeping a cool temper; however, other editors involved in this discussion could similar improve their collegial editing skills. For instance, addressing the substance of disputes, instead of responding with anger, irritation, or personal commentary. --Lquilter (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that at least two single-purpose accounts were used to "vote" against mergers. These two accounts made zero edits to articles other than the anti-merge votes. --Lquilter (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have read the mediator's initial comment in this section more closely, as I think that "As far as I have gathered, one particular member of our community's behaviour is being questioned." is not a fair statement of the issue. Discussion has indeed been very confusing, and I've tried to clean it up & make it a bit more readable by adding new subheadings when a major comment was added by a new commentor. I would like to suggest that the mediator skim through the page again with the subheads and see if there is a better understanding of the discussion after that. My own sense of this issue is that Lucy marie made changes and recommendations of changes to various 24 character pages; these were questioned and led to merge discussions on various talk pages; consensus was not reached on those talk pages about whether to merge or not to merge, and little action was taken in response to the concerns that led to the merge proposals. In the meantime, I saw heated language and inappropriate personalization on the part of several editors, and that can certainly be addressed, but I'd like to point out that, in my view, there has been a lot of inappropriate personal commentary about Lucy marie. In other words, while the discussion has been vociferous about Lucy marie, there are substantive article content concerns that have been voiced, albeit less vociferously. And, I would say, the inappropriate editing behavior does not appear to be one-sided.
Regarding the substantive issues, according to Angelriver, a plurality or majority of editors agree that notability has yet to be established for many of the articles in question, and most agree that the end of this month is a reasonable period to establish that notability. It is not clear to me what happens at the end of February, nor what Angelriver, Lan Di, Tuna Sushi, and MiB-24 are individually planning to do. Presumably, articles will be cleaned up (well-sourced and no OR, TRIVIA, PLOT), and then editors will try to achieve consensus on keep as separate or merge; or some editor will send to AFD. If, in fact, Angelriver is correct and the other editors are agreed to this, then great. I'm certainly happy to watch (& help) during February as I've already stated, and Lucy marie has already offered to look back in on the articles at the end of February -- an offer that has been inappropriately characterized in negative terms, but is completely appropriate follow-up by an editor.
So it would be helpful I think to have a clear statement of principles to which people can sign on, in order to be responsive to the original mediation request. Based on Angelriver's assessment, then, I suggest:
  1. Sourcing of articles and elimination of WP:OR, WP:PLOT, and WP:TRIVIA through the end of February. Editors who support "merge" in their present state will not press for "merge" or "delete" until the February changes have been made and assessed.
  2. Editors who have been supporting "don't merge" to the articles in their present state will make a good faith effort to support merge of articles, or abstain from standing in its way, for articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria at the end of February. Similarly, editors who have been supporting "merge" for articles in their present state will make a good faith effort to assess those articles at the end of February in light of changes, and only recommend MERGE or send the article to AFD if it still significantly fails Wikipedia policy.
  3. Editors will refrain from commenting on each others' motives, editing style, age, and personal attributes; will refrain from using generalizing language like "deletionists" or "fans".
This is of course somewhat redundant of MiB-24's helpful summaries earlier; however, those got lost in the back-and-forth of personal accusations. So setting aside personal accusations, it would be helpful to agree on editing principles. Lquilter (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lquilter, this is a very misleading summary. The "substance of disputes" never would have been an "issue" without the incivility and poor behavior of Lucy-marie. In this regard, the two are unfortunately linked, and debate of one necessitates the inclusion of the other for discussion. I have not encountered a situation like this on Wikipedia before. When an editor ramrods her changes and opinion without discussion or collaboration, it is a very frustrating and detrimental experience for others who want to contribute.
  2. As stated previously, I still see this as Lucy-marie vs. consensus, though notability needs to be addressed as stated in the comments by Sgeureka. I don't agree entirely with the WP:NOT#PLOT assessments, but I can see where others might.
  3. Finally, if Lucy-Marie insisted on bringing this to mediation, where's her good faith in accepting the mediator's recommendations? She's forced all parties to jump through her hoops, and when 3rd party disinterested mediation goes against her actions, she disregards the entire process. That's what I call bullshit. TunaSushi (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TunaSushi, I find it a bit confusing to have chunks of text in boxes -- just fyi. As for the substance, I understand that you feel the issue to be about Lucy marie's actions. That's not my take on it. As I have already said, Lucy marie's actions are -- in my view -- not significantly more ill-behaved than other editors, and there was no "consensus" in opposition to her substantive content recommendations / changes. Clearly you disagree, and that's your prerogative. That said, if we are all agreed on the end of February, then I sincerely hope to see improvements on the articles through February, and perhaps this entire silly issue will just go away on its own. --Lquilter (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13_24_character_merging_of_minor_characters&oldid=1144180093"