On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that
in the example that
> caused the case,
antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack
> site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources
> (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of
> BADSITES-like policies).
Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a
site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle,
then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical of bullying
and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is a pretty good
reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
Then for God's sake please say this expressly, else the querulous will
assume you're justifying removing a well-source and verifiably notable
name of an attack site that's achieved real-world notability. You
remember, the actual cause of the case being brought!
- d.