The last part of my last message didn't make it to the online archives, apparently due to the UNIX/Linux misfeature of treating the word "From" at the beginning of a line as a message separator in mailbox files, so I'm reposting it:

[F]rom all of this, it's obvious that the policy (currently embedded in [[WP:NPA]] after the attempt at a separate BADSITES policy failed) is highly flawed, and causes much more trouble than good, and also clearly doesn't agree with consensus given that none of the above attempts actually succeeded in suppressing the information they were trying to do, and all of them met with strong opposition including from admins.

Particularly troublesome is the part of the policy that claims that the 3-revert rule doesn't apply to removing attack site links. This is a destructive invitation to edit-warring, going against the very reason 3RR was enacted in the first place: everybody who edit-wars does it because they think they're right and the other guy is wrong. In true, noncontroversial cases of gratuitous personal attacks, harrassment, outing, and the like, this special exception is unnecessary; if somebody vandalizes a user page to reveal the true name and address of that user and invite people to stalk him/her, there will undoubtably be a whole flock of editors and admins rushing to revert the vandalism, oversight the personal info, and block the user who inserted it; it's unlikely that anybody would need to revert more than 3 times in this process, and even if somebody did, it wouldn't be punished given the obviousness of the case (it's the sort of thing that goes under WP:IAR). It's only in cases where there's a real controversy over whether the policy applies to a particular case, and whether it makes any sense to invoke it, that there would be a perceived need to do multiple reverts, and those are the cases where discussion rather than edit-warring would be productive.

Anyway, the policy is clearly not factually accurate, given that somebody *did* get blocked for 3RR over removing one of the links mentioned above.

If the policy is not to have a stake driven through its heart (my preference), it at least needs a massive rewrite in accordance with Jimbo's stated principles, so it calls for a thoughtful, reasoned approach to potentially harmful links rather than an absolutist black- and-white "we're good, those sites are evil" zero-tolerance rule.