Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by Guy Macon: Reply |
→Comments by Tryptofish: Reply |
||
Line 208:
:Hi Trypto. I have a few things to say on this but it might be a bit before I'm able to write my thoughts. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 16:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
::Hi {{U|Tryptofish}}. I assume that you're fine on Remedies 1 and 2 now that they both are solidly failing. Ditto the Sgerbic remedies because we're not enacting any remedies related to her. Regarding remedy 13, I supported this remedy as a drafter (and intend to support it at the PD) because I thought it was an underused tool in the circumstances leading up to the case and unambiguously applied to a lot of the lead-up.
::You're right that we didn't explicitly act to clarify the Pseudoscience PD, and perhaps we should have. I would remind editors and administrators editing in skepticism-related topics of the recent ARCA clarification at [[Special:Permalink/1034695626#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience]]. Basically, we said that pseudoscience DS applies only if the topic ''purports'' to be ''scientific'' (i.e. use the scientific method and/or engage some kind of systematically testable hypotheses) in some way, and absent further committee decision that test should continue to be applied. A skeptic group could fall under [[WP:ARBPS]] if for example a lot of their work relates to pseudoscience, so defined above.
::Before posting the PD I personally wavered about whether to include a new DS authorization, but ultimately what persuaded me not to was the fact that any disruption presented in this case isn't tied to a particular topic area but rather a particular group of editors, which in my view rendered the authorization of discretionary sanctions (which are generally tied to topic) inappropriate.
::Hope this answers your questions, but if I missed anything please ask. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 01:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 ==
| |||