[WikiEN-l] AGF and NPA in the BADSITES meta-discussion

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"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