There's not really any reason for that, either. Common sense dictates that if a user posts a link to a site attempting to "out" editors (and that user is clearly doing so in order to troll or engage in harassment), then that edit can be reverted and the user blocked, and current policy agrees.
On the other hand, there *are* times where it is appropriate to link to such sites, and people should recognize this. For example, suppose an editor who had posted to WR was up for RFA. It would seem appropriate if a user linked to one of their posts on the forum to question them regarding it. Or, as another example, look at my ArbCom <s>case</s> lynching. Some of my posts to Wikipedia Review were entered as "evidence", and I doubt anyone would consider this to have been inappropriate.
The problem with adding new policies or amending existent policies to address the issue of users posting such links is that it is essentially the same as telling them not to stuff beans up their nose. Most good-faith editors wouldn't link to such sites, except for in a select few circumstances where it might be appropriate to do so. But trolls and other bad-faith users, upon seeing such a policy, will actually *look* for the problematic websites.
Stirring up drama over this issue actually draws more attention to the websites you are trying to limit the effect of. Probably not a good idea.
Slim Virgin wrote:
I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
Sarah
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l