[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham at gmail.com> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy
> > like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that
> > links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded
> > admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something
> > even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed,
> > or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with
> > the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of
> > "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something
> > to deserve it" on their lips.
> >
>
> This is an interesting argument, which, although repeated numerous
> times, has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The argument seems to
> go, "BADSITES didn't go the way we wanted it to, so it *must* have been
> launched by a disruptive user with the intent to invoke the opposite
> reaction."

No that's the straw man version of the argument. You know the
difference, so please stop doing that.

> The problem is that nothing has been produced to support this
> claim.

Actually, a number of arguments have been put forward supporting this claim.

>
> > Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct
> > me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what
> > exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.
>
> I'm not talking about any new policy, or proposed policy.

You specifically talked about a "policy they support", which was not
BADSITES, but was very similar to it. Please explain where I can find
that policy.