On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted,
but which
some people keep promoting under various guises -- is the notion
that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an
uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the
harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link
to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme
sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished
Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset
about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about
(and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES,
despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether
under that name or some other.
The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES
keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that
BADSITES is dead, and that stubborn insistence on debating
BADSITES is distracting from the real work at hand.
Who on earth are you talking about here? I hope not me; I was never
involved in the original BADSITES strawman (never once made an edit to
the page or Talk: page), nor have I been involved in any of its
subsequent alleged re-incarnations, variations, alternatives, etc. Is
there someone in particular you are referring to?