My longer-form thoughts are at Substack.
Because it's political. Some people are invested in Ivermectin being effective, other people are invested in it not being effective. The extant studies are all inconclusive due to a small N, and mostly have problems with their methodology; if you pick and choose your studies in the right way you can get whatever result you want.
And the individual studies are often extremely bad. I note Cadegiani et al, who claim that Ivermectin (and also Hydroxychloroquine, and also Nitazoxanide) are each so effective, either individually or combined (they didn't bother to track which patients got which drugs) that it is unethical to use a placebo group in studying those drugs. I'm not sure how Elsevier can be affiliated with a journal that publishes material like that and retain any credibility.
The answers suggesting "this shouldn't be a test you can study for" seem very misguided. This is a yellow belt, not a black belt. If you think you can become a card-carrying Rationalist without studying books, you are mistaken.
I would expect a battery of short-answer questions, maybe 6 hours/75 questions. Prove the Pythagorean Theorem. What is Bayes' Theorem? Is Pascal's Wager accurate? What impact do human emotions have in decision making? If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Was George Washington a myth?
There is an aesthetic desire for a more flashy test, a gom jabbar for the rationalist. I would expect that would be an intermediate test between the yellow belt and the black belt. The various "Explain this mysterious system" questions are good, so I'll suggest some puzzle where "what do you think you know and why do you think you know it" is the key to the solution.
I do need to explicitly call out one point here. Making edits to an existing page is often ignored. Creating a new page is always reviewed by somebody; and there is a consistent backlog due to a lack of volunteers to do the reviewing. As a result, many promising stub articles are treated quickly and poorly. There's no solution here other than to find more reviewers (which does take quite a bit of project-specific knowledge; you need to understand reference formatting, categories, article structure, etc.).
You're absolutely correct that the page should have been made into a redirect rather than turned into a draft. Mistakes happen; you can fix it.
Regarding WELLBY specifically:
There are frequent complaints (here and elsewhere) that Wikipedia editing has gatekeepers. And if you want to edit the article on Donald Trump, change the history of the Troubles in Ireland, or claim something about who owns the Spratly Islands, there are gatekeepers. If you want to work on the vast swaths of the encyclopedia that aren't complete and aren't hot political topics, it's rare that you will come across any response to your edits at all.
I think there's a logical error. You claim to be deducing "IF route FAST is taken THEN I will arrive at 3pm", but what you should actually be deducing is "IF route SLOW is taken THEN (IF route FAST is taken THEN I will arrive at 3pm)". What you end up with is proving that "route SLOW is taken" is logically equivalent to "IF route FAST is taken THEN I will arrive at 3pm AND IF route SLOW is taken THEN I will arrive at 2pm", but neither of them are proved.