Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List of sovereign states

volume of text
This is a side discussion, but I'd like to figure out what we can do about the volume of text that's being produced in this dispute. it's very hard for me to keep track of where the discussion is going, because you all say so darned much about everything. can we reach some agreement about keeping the volume down? e.g. agreeing not to respond to every single point raised, doing our best not to repeat points that have already been said, trying to keep arguments focused and concise...

I could step in and start structuring discussions more heavily, but I don't want to do that without a clear need, and since you guys aren't actively squabbling I'm loathe. but we do need some way to thin out the text so that everything is easier to follow. -- Ludwigs 2 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should put this on Alinor's talk page.  Night w   05:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but I just don't get it why some people continue to ignore the WP:RS/WP:V we have (UN Office of Legal Affairs) and make proposals that contradict these. That's why I ask them every time basically the same thing - "is there any reason/source supporting our deviation from WP:RS and conforms with WP:V?" - with the hope that this time they will give a reason/source. I will stop my attempts to get this answer, but we have to resolve this issue sooner or later. I think that this is the major problem and disagreement that we have. Alinor (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I confess, I've barely read anything on this talk page. And Alinor, if you want a decent response, don't keep waving stuff around in front of people's faces. We've all seen that document before. Don't simply place that everywhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to make this about anyone in particular - my sense is that when one person is posting an excessive amount, it's because he's responding to a number of people who are making the same claim in different places. the hardest thing about a discussion like this is to get everyone to realize that it's counter-productive to try to respond to everything - the real trick is to get a simple concise discussion without a lot of repetition, so that everyone can see the issues clearly.  but see my suggestion below, avbout setting up a structured discussion area.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for the mediator
With the consent of other involved parties, I'd like to ask if Ludwigs2 could perhaps close and collapse some sections with summaries of the issues and consensus (if any). I haven't read everything that's been written, not nearly. I don't particularly want to either. If people have stopped writing in one section, if it's not a dead issue, it's not under current discussion and continuing an old thread may confuse some (some being me). Making the page shorter and highlighting current discussions would I feel only make things better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. Even for those of us that have been reading. Outback the koala (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been considering that, actually, and it's a really good idea, but I've been hesitating because there is so much being written on the page. I don't want to collapse something that might offend someone or queer the discussion in a different part of the page.


 * I've been toying with the idea of first setting up a structured discussion in a separate section, and then closing off the other discussions abruptly to force people to pick up in the structured venue. would that generally be accepted by everyone if I did that?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Outback the koala (talk)
 * Yes. --Taivo (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly think this would be helpful to keeping the discussion focused and on track. TDL (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Alinor (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, probably what you tried to do with your getting a handle on things section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll start setting up things tomorrow morning. -- Ludwigs 2  06:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow turned into 2 weeks fast. Status?? Outback the koala (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I've had some problems of my own (bit o' real life, and got sucked into a crazy arbcom thing). My bad for slacking, though.  I'll dedicate some time to this tomorrow.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
If nothing's happening in the rest of this discussion, can we archive everything in the Discussion and Straw Poll level two headers? The page is taking awhile to load. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Ludwigs 2 00:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)