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.

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.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

My comments are just trivial typographical corrections:

1. 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".)
2. 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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831213400","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240831213400-Tryptofish's_section","replies":["c-Aoidh-20240831221400-Tryptofish-20240831213400"]}}-->

@Tryptofish: Thanks for pointing that out, I've made changes to correct these. - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831221400","author":"Aoidh","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aoidh-20240831221400-Tryptofish-20240831213400","replies":[]}}-->

ToBeFree writes: 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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902233500","author":"Robert McClenon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Robert_McClenon-20240902233500-Robert_McClenon's_section","replies":[]}}-->