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.