A major part of the problem in all of this is that the relentless battle against links to these sites has meant in practice a discussion composed entirely of unsupported allegations. And maybe the links shouldn't appear, but then the allegations shouldn't be made either. For instance, someone has said, apparently without proof that I can find, that Gracenotes was a participant on WR. This appears to be false, but it cannot be shown either way without real references to the site. The whole discussion has been profoundly polluted with dubious allegations of malicious motives.
If people wanted to put forth a list of banned sites, it could be discussed. Of course, that would attract attention to these sites. But as long as this is based on certain criteria, it's a certainty that naive or wicked editors are going to involve other "innocent" sites, because it's a certainty that outsiders, believing that the identities of editors and admins DOES matter, are going to expose those identities.