A wrote:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..."
- If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
Absolutely. The distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki (or on-project and off-project) behavior is one we should be careful about, but in general, the standard is not some rationalistic nonsense but rather simple good judgment about when someone is behaving badly and disrupting our work or not.
- Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
Often they are necessary and important, I think. But they are also a magnet for trolls.
- If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough.
- Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
kind of criticism in their biographies?
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.