Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Proposed decision

message: I have some critiques of the two proposed remedies so far. First, I think "region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" should be replaced with "the Caucasus region and the ethnic, religious, and historical issues related to that area." Caucasus is a broader way of putting it, and if phrased like that the remedy will also apply to Chechnya and Abkhazia-related articles, where there has been conflict.
Second, when you say "reasonable degree of civility," who is this to be determined by? Presumably uninvolved administrators, in which case I think that should be noted. Third and finally, why are everybody who was sanctioned in the previous case being sanctioned here? , for example, doesn't seem to have done anything wrong recently. Also note that there are parties to this case who mainly edit Iran-related articles, and who were not in the old case. I think this remedy should be adapted to apply to the people involved in this case. Picaroon (Talk) 20:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the remedy should include Iran related topics, as for example many Azerbaijan related issues involve the articles on Iranian history and politics and such articles like Safavid dynasty were a source of dispute for years. And I agree with the last comment of Picaroon, the remedy should be more specific in application to certain users. --Grandmaster 05:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The remedies may be applied to anyone who edits these articles in a disruptive way, after notice and warning. Fred Bauder 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My concern is that the probation is proposed to be applied to all users involved in the previous arbcom case regardless if they were involved in any disruptive activity since then or not. However, most of disruption was caused by the users not involved in the previous case and thus not restricted by the parole. I believe that it would be better to apply remedies individually to users involved in disruptive activity, including those who were not parties to the previous case. Grandmaster 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could probably force arbitrators to take a harsher decision for those who were involved in the first one which includes banning some. Most others who were not involved in the past arbitration do not have a long history of edit warring or disruptive editing, you had your chance so I don't understand why you are so pressed to dump everyone in here. The logic is, if those new ones end up with harsh restrictions, those who had restrictions and are still disruptive should have even harsher ones. - Fedayee 06:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that a more severe punishment should be applied to those who had already been sanctioned. I just think that such measures should be applied on individual basis with consideration to the actual offences committed by each person. As for new users, some of them have a long history of disruptive editing. Grandmaster 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques of/questions about proposed remedies 

message: I believe all current ArbCom participants should be equally paroled from reverting more than once. Otherwise, take a look what is currently ArbCom involved participant User:MarshallBagramyan doing: , , , , . I don't see how the proposed decision would address the indicated behavior of actually trying to remove the link to massacres in Nagorno-Karabakh from Nagorno-Karabakh articles. Atabek 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom Proposed Decision