No, the judge does not want you to go back and fight. Judges have quite enough to fill their time without encouraging people to litigate disputes. There is not a judge in the country who would not prefer parties to come to an agreement.
However, you are confusing this with something else. Many people think that if they are agreed then that is that but the fact is that it isn't. The courts exercise an independent discretion. They will not approve any agreement they think is unfair. Sometimes what looks unfair on the face of it may become less unfair if further explanation is provided. Therefore if judge thinks further explanation will help then he/she will seek that further information rather than reject an application out of hand.
What is fair in any particular case may be anywhere along a broad spectrum but if on the face of it any given agreement looks to fall outside even that broad spectrum a judge will not approve it. The factors which a court has to take into account are laid down by law and those factors take precedence over whether there is agreement or not. Two people can agree a contract of slavery if they want but there is not a court in the country which would approve such an agreement or enable it to be enforced.
Incidentally, what mediators are usually interested in is fostering agreement. That does not mean to say that any such agreement is necessarily fair. Say, for instance, after a twenty year marriage A says that he/she wants everything and B says, 'I agree'. That is the end as far as a mediator is concerned. Whether such an agreement is fair would be a wholly different issue and that is what a judge has to decide. Most agreements reached at mediation are broadly fair but that is not to say that all are.
