"Alec Conroy" wrote
For convenience, I using the term BADSITES to the same
basic principle:
No linking to sites that harass/attack/out. Removals not subject to
3RR. Violations lead to blocks or bans.
So far, this basic idea has been incarnated in several different
places-- arbcom principles, WP:BADSITES, WP:NPA#EL. There are subtle
distinctions between the various strains, but they're all the same
basic species.
You realise, of course that WP:NPA#EL is disputed. Disputed is not policy - it is mostly
non-policy. Policy that is disputed long enough falls off its perch. I don't know what
is "long enough" for WP:NPA#EL to be recognized generally as the non-policy it
is, but I presume this will come about one day when the AC case is closed. (AC principles
are also not policy. Using them to overstate a case is particularly smart. The fact that
the AC would probably rubberstamp many applications of BADSITES in practice has not very
much to do with approval of the policy, and a great deal to do with existing policies such
as WP:HARASS and WP:RS.)
So, I think the more divisive voices have just got it wrong, mostly. The subject here
betrays that this is in the "personalities not policies" bracket.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam