It makes no sense whatsoever to delink an external site because some random idiot posted something mean in one of the comments. That basically gives any troll out there blanket license to have any reader participation links removed, including blogs, wikis, YouTube, Flickr, basically any Web 2.0 site, etc. I am increasingly convinced that WP:BADSITES is a nonsense policy. Hell, we shouldn't be allowed to link to Wikipedia, because lord knows all sorts of defamatory content has been posted there! --Cyde Weys 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who will be bold enough to modify NPA policy pages to remove the ghost of BADSITES? Both Cyde and Jimbo have now said it's a shit idea. That is from ANI right now.

Another unexpected action by Cyde. I'm not the best person at personalities and shifting alliances of WP, so correctly if I'm wrong here. Isn't Cyde allied with Danny? Haven't heard much from Danny since he self-destructed in Foundation B/T election. Maybe Cyde is adrift without Danny or maybe Danny is about to unleash a new product roll-out.

Cyde seems more heroic every day.

He's quickly getting up there to the vote of best admin on Wikipedia.

If Cyde gets desysopped over this stand, he MUST post here.

Can we have a link to this, and to the discussion?

Another unexpected action by Cyde. I'm not the best person at personalities and shifting alliances of WP, so correctly if I'm wrong here. Isn't Cyde allied with Danny?

On English Wikipedia, there has been some controversy about whether it is, or ought to be, the policy that linking to so-called "attack sites" against Wikipedia and Wikipedians is to be banned. Some administrators have (overzealously, in some others' opinions) removed links to criticism sites from such places as talk pages, evidence pages for ArbCom cases, and even in a few cases from actual articles where they were being used as a source. I wrote an essay on this issue. What is your opinion? Dtobias 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we should censor these sites, nor do I believe that we should make them out to be more important than they really are. As such, I think that people should be able to cite them in certain very specific circumstances relating to the content that appears on them, such as an ArbCom ruling. Other than that, I see no reason why they should be included. Danny 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: SwatJester discovered an anonymous anti-semitic remark in comment #311 of a post on the weblog of Patricia Nielsen Hayden, a writer and science fiction editor. In response, SwatJester wants to delete all references in Wikipedia to that weblog.

If this were wikipedia policy and general practice, an editor could easily remove a link to ANY wiki, news group, forum, or other publicly-editable Web site by arranging for uncivil crticicism of a wikipedian or of wikipedia to appear as an anonymous comment. Of course, the site admins can and probably will delete the comment, but the admin can always raise the issue before the action takes place, and in some cases the Web site needs to follow procedures like Wikipedia's own.

Comment 313 in response to a blog post said something negative about Swat Jester, so Swat Jester wants the entire blog to be de-linked from Wikipedia.

Ya, good one.