Disclaimer: I don't actually use ED and what I know of it comes from mentions on the talk page and here, which seems to be quite enough to understand this: Summary: This site is a controversial site that is often considered an attack site, but we have an article about it anyway. The site shut down and the users of the old site restarted it at a different location. Wikipedia has decided that site should be considered defunct and the new site ignored because 1) the new site is for harassment and we shouldn't link to harassment (even though the same is true of the old site, yet we have an article about it), 2) the new site is a copyright violation of the old site and we're not supposed to link to copyright violations (even though the claim that it is a copyright violation is based on selectively using one of two contradictory copyright notices from the old site), and 3) we have no reliable source claiming the two sites are the same. It seems obvious to me that this is being excluded because either the editors don't want to link there and find this a good excuse, or else are simply blindly adhering to rules even when they make no sense (I recall a case where an open-source project was restarted by the same people under a new name and we couldn't have an article about it because we had to provide separate notability for the new version of the project). We also may want to rethink the rules about copyright violations. It's one thing to ignore a site because it contains a bootleg copy of Star Wars. It's another to ignore a site where there's a copyright dispute and Wikipedia has to actually decide the dispute in order to call the site a copyright violation. It especially makes little sense when the same people are involved in the "copyright violating" site who were involved with the original site--shouldn't it make more sense to treat it as the same site if it has the same content and the same people, even if its copyright status did change?