Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Proposed decision

{{tmbox

| type = content

| text =

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion.
Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

}}

{{notice|header=This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched|

To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.}}{{Casenav|case name=Historical elections|clerk1=HouseBlaster|clerk2=SilverLocust|clerk3=|draft arb=Guerillero|draft arb2=Aoidh|draft arb3=Z1720|draft arb4=|active=8|inactive=5|recused=0||scope=Conduct in the topic area of historical elections.|workshop-skipped=no}}

Tryptofish's section

My comments are just trivial typographical corrections:

In Principle 3, there's a typo in noun-verb number agreement: "Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases ~~need~~ needs to carefully weigh...". (The subject-verb are: "Evaluation needs".)
No big deal, but some of the section headers throughout the PD use capitalization of words that don't need to be capitalized. (As per MOS:SECTIONCAPS.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Tryptofish}} Thanks for pointing that out, I've made changes to correct these. - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon's section

{{noping|ToBeFree}} writes: {{tq|The three-revert rule is one of the most commonly misinterpreted policy sections Wikipedia has, together with the definition of "vandalism" and the magic "status quo".}} I agree, but there is a difference. The three-revert rule is not exactly misunderstood, but is thought by too many to be the definition of edit-warring. On the other hand, the policy on vandalism is completely misunderstood by some editors, because it is thought to be whatever they disagree with. Likewise, the non-policy on status quo is thought to mean whatever someone thinks it says. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)