Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Comments by Tryptofish: reply to KevinL |
||
Line 270:
::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)
:::Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree entirely about the things that are now moot because they will not pass, no problem. About the DS, I understand what you are saying, but I feel the need to point some things out. The ARCA clarification was about pseudohistory, false attempts to rewrite history. That's not particularly what the disputes here have been about. Consider, for example, [[ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic]]. That's a topic where scientific skepticism could readily apply, if it hasn't already. But obviously no one would argue that ivermectin is a living person covered by BLP. It clearly does fall within the PS topic area. That's why I'm arguing that it's useful to remind editors of ''both'' BLP ''and'' PS. That's not about authorizing new DS, which I agree is a dead issue here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 ==
| |||