Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:49, 28 February 2022

Revision as of 19:00, 28 February 2022

Line 272:

:::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)

::::Oh, I see, I midunderstood{{snd}}you aren't asking us to interpret PS to include all skepticism-related stuff; instead you just to include a reminder that PS DS is available where previously authorized. That's OK with me, though I'm not sure how much value that would add. Pinging co-drafters {{U|Izno}} and {{U|Barkeep49}} for any thoughts. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 19:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

== Comments by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 ==