Fred Bauder wrote:
Willy D wrote:
On 10/24/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"Anyone who wants to understand what is going on here, should simply read [http://www.someattacksite.com/Admin_name.html this link]."
That seems like a clear violation of WP:NPA without use of badsites at all. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. I will say "Even without anything resembling badsites, this is actionable under WP:NPA". Even if we, as a community, reject WP:BADSITES to the last editor, this is still unacceptable per WP:NPA. Doesn't matter. Totally off topic.
Actually, no. It's not off topic. Harassment policy, to the extent it is valid, is based on No Personal Attacks.
What he means is that even if WP:BADSITES were expunged from the history of Wikipedia and erased from the minds of all of its editors such that it was not even remotely possible to use it as a justification for any action whatsoever, the link would _still_ be removed simply on the basis of the existing no-personal-attacks policy. So BADSITES is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether this link is removed.
BADSITES and BADSITES-like proposals are _extensions_ to the no personal attacks policy, covering things that are not in and of themselves personal attacks. That's where the dispute comes in.