On 5/31/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Contriving an "indirect" personal attack against another editor, in the form of a link to an off-wiki site which makes such an attack, is tantamount to a direct personal attack and is likewise disallowed.
I disagree. People who follow links out of Wikipedia ought to understand that those sites aren't going to play by Wikipedia's rules, and therefore may be more rough-and-tumble (or differently rough-and-tumble) than Wikipedia is. A bare link to WR with no explanation isn't a personal attack. Period. Linking to it in the context of telling someone on Wikipedia to find some dirt on another editor may be an attack-- it's a bit of a grey area, since if the information is true and germane, it cannot be construed to be the kind of response that NPA is directed against.
The thing is that none of the controversial cases since the beginning of April have involved this kind of insinuation. This is definitely a place for AGF, whereas it seems to me that part of the subtext of this is that we are supposed to be getting the message that linking to (or for that matter, participating on) WR is prima facie evidence of malign intent.