Guy, if we are going to start down the "unsupported assertion" route,
we can start with "There exists on Wikipedia a small group of people
who will reflexively revert any removal of any link to external
harassment, shouting 'ZOMG! BADSITES!' and calling the world to come
and look." In an discussion with a point, it seems to me to be more
worthwhile to address the statement whether or not it is supported.
What everything seems to come down to is two situations: first, the
links to WR and ED; and second, the links to everything else. As for
the first, in spite of all the talking from your side, nobody seems to
care in practice, because the links hardly seem to change. So it's a
strawman to keep bringing it up. As for the second, BADSITES seems to
figure in the outbursts of erasure as a mixture of vandalism and POV
editing. The case most recently cited fits that pattern with little
deviation; if you cannot remember the previous repetitions of this
section of the discussion, that's too bad. I refuse to put everyone
else through having to read it all yet again.
All we want is for everyone to honor the consensus, which is that
these erasures stop. What we're getting instead is a group of
administrators and their allies who not only refuse to honor the
consensus, but who work against it and who make veiled personal
attacks on those who object to this.