[WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to "attack sites"

[Daniel R. Tobias]

I was being "unnecessarily inflammatory" according to Steve Bennett 
for saying that some people have a problem with people linking to 
sites they don't like.  A couple of others have already referred to 
the big WP:BADSITES debate, including the edit warring, threats, 
accusations of WP:POINT, and so on that attended the addition and 
removal of links to sites used to illustrate why sometimes linking to 
such sites makes sense.  Now, yet another conflict has broken out 
along those lines.

This week, Wikipedia Signpost has an article about the latest 
developments in the Daniel Brandt flap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-
23/Brandt_unblock

The original version, by Michael Snow, included a link to Brandt's 
Wikipedia Watch site, which was relevant to the article because it 
was in fact being discussed there.

Michaelas10 then removed the link, using "Attack site" as his edit 
summary.

Then, SqueakBox reinstated it, saying that [[WP:BADSITES]] is not 
policy.

Musical Linguist then reverted that, and there was one more round of 
edit warring by these last two users, before it settled to its 
current state of not having the link.

Musical Linguist also left a warning message threatening to block 
SqueakBox, which he deleted from his talk page.

Some of the commentary referred to "enforcing the MONGO ArbCom 
decision", and it's a perfect example of why I consider that 
decision, at least the part of it that imposed a ban on linking to 
"attack sites", was a bad idea.


-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/