[me]
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Denny Colt wrote:
This conversation spawned from some vehement opposition to a proposed policy to ban links to attack, outing, and hate sites aimed at hurting Wikipedians. The policy is:
That has been getting Kafkaesque because the "policy" has been used to *ban links in the discussion about the policy*. That's right, in discussing a policy about whether attack sites may be linked to, nobody may ever use an attack site as an example of why one might want to link to an attack site.
Someone responded that it's a dead issue.
Well, it's a live issue again.
How in the world is it possible to discuss a policy that is being enforced ahead of time in a way which prevents discussion of its own merits?