Both realities must be fitted in here. The community rejects a broad blanket ban. They generally support remove of links to external attacks. Calling every critical site an attack site is no good. Pretending that some sites are anything but attack sites is no good either. A critical site that also engages in persistent unfair attacks on our users and engages in outing such as Wikipedia Review presents us with difficult choices. A site such as Encyclopedia Dramatica that contains little or no legitimate critical content combined with vicious personal attacks on their main page does not. If they want to advertise their site, they need to buy ads. Bottom line: It is our responsibility to support our users and take reasonable steps to protect them from harassment both on Wikipedia and on external sites. Question is, what are reasonable steps? Obviously the ban on the drama site ED is effective, else its partisans would not be complaining so bitterly and fighting so hard. A blanket ban on WR is more difficult, involving actual users of Wikipedia, some of whom from time to time may have legitimate grievances. The problem is, they add to the problems they already have by posting regularly to a site that sometimes engages in harassment of our users. If a user regularly engages in edit warring and other disruptive activities such as repeated personal attacks on Wikipedia, they will eventually get banned or blocked, Turning to their "friends" at Wikipedia Review is unlikely to prove a path back to Wikipedia editing, especially if they engage in the very behavior there which got them banned here. Fred