http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...k_site_questionQUOTE
Having not dealt with them very much in the past, do we block users who create off-wiki attack sites about other editors? I found an instance, where, after I was admittedly less than civil with another user in the last month during a dispute, they created a blog posting in which I am called a jewbag, I am accused of lying about my military service, and my full name is used (Which I'm not worried about because it is no secret on the internet, but if it were someone else who wished to be anonymous, I feel like that would be a problem). It's not just me though, they bash User:David Gerard as well. Criticism is one thing. Insulting comments about one's religion and military service is an attack. What is the process here?⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Bolding mine. Scary--they're on to blocking users now possibly that criticize or attack Wikipedians off-wiki?
If this passes every single WP editor that is today unblocked on Wikipedia is
on notice. This is phase one of the crackdown.
Once again, it's the MAKING LIGHT website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=153698548
I'm torn on the issue myself.
You see, common sense would dictate that if a person was publishing actual attacks on a third-party site, a ban from Wikipedia may very well be appropriate. However, this wouldn't necessarily be appropriate in all cases, and it should be weighed carefully. Which brings us to the problem with relying on common sense for policy interpretation. Few people actually possess it.
Which means that if a definitive statement were made in this case, there would be a legalistic ban of users for participating in alleged "attack sites". But, there would be an incredibly variance in the definition of what an attack site supposedly is. Wikipedia still can't come to a consensus on the issue, except that it is an attack site if it has a negative impact on the structured groupthink, and it is not if it has a positive impact. Thus, if the attack is on, say, a banned user, or a user who is considered to be on his last legs on Wikipedia, nobody would give a shit, because it's not an "attack" by Wikipedia definitions, because by Wikipedia definitions, the alienated editor is not a person. They'd applaud the attacker and even give him a barnstar for his efforts.
The problem is that it's not talking about personal attacks, its talking about criticism.
If this was a site that existed purely and solely to smear someone's name, then yes, it should be banned from Wikipedia.
Just imagine that we had 1 page per Wikipedia admin or editor that we don't like.
Each page had their photograph, full name, address, phone number, all e-mail addresses, work place, all chat site names that they use, including forums, and every conceivable way to contact them. It also had their work name and address, and how to contact them.
Then each page had a series of things that they'd done wrong on Wikipedia, combined with linkage to things that we thought that they'd done in real life.
It then made accusations of one or more lowest-common-denominator things that they were supposed to have done. E.g. Been gay, S&M, cross-dressing, transsexual, furry, racist, black, Jewish, anti-semitic, gay bashing, holocaust denial, insane, child abuse, paedophilia, spousal abuse, and things of that nature. The kinds of things that are likely to lead to them getting attacked in real life.
If that was what this site had, then absolutely it should be banned.
But criticising someone's activity on Wikipedia, in relation to a broad criticism of what is wrong with Wikipedia is a very different issue.