"

Pretty much what I said the first day this was posted. Now, I have neither a problem with the Cabal's decision nor in the Cabal's logic (as Deamon138 does). My concern is why a vote that basically said ""I don't know"" means it stays at Burma. By the Cabal's conclusion...If the article had happened to be frozen at Myanmar before the mediation, and we had the same Cabal, it would now be a Myanmar article. I can see where the Myanmar side would be unhappy. However why should the Burma side agree to abide by the next decision? You can bet that with every panel of mediators that might side with Myanmar you will find at least as many panels that side with Burma. Husond is right, where does this end? When I first looked at this mess I said, and posted, that with the current evidence on both sides editors and mediators will NOT be able to reach a FAIR compromise that will appease both sides of this issue... no matter how much thought is put into it. There are good points for each argument. I'm in the Burma camp but that is how I see things. So I'm looking at 1) leave it where it is now, 2) split it into 2 identical articles, 3) some bizarre bot that switches it back and forth daily, 4) a new type of mediation that imho will not end this by any stretch of the imagination. Choice 4 just doesn't look that appealing.   "