Mr. Gallagher, I see my syntax was slightly ambiguous. Initially I did believe that the passage was authentic. Consultation with the WR-ites revealed that they thought it was not. I had them move the thread into the closed subforum so as to eliminate the (likely mistaken) allegation out of public view, and I left an apology with SV.
The reason, of course, that personal attacks lead to a "poisonous editing environment" is because people understand that such attacks are immoral-- at least when they themselves are the target-- and therefore have moral reactions against them. Interpersonal behavior on Wikipedia is still interpersonal behavior in the world at large. I don't see that assessment of WR is of itself a personal attack, nor is assessment of Wikipedia on WR necessarily personal attacks on editors, either generally or in specific cases. Now, the WR-ites have grievances against specific editors. They are not all that well-behaved there about it, so what they say is a mixture of credible and dubious allegations, and pure vitriol. The thing is, all of this is in the context of the larger discussion of Wikipedia, and people are going to expect Wikipedia to obey the rules of public discourse in the large.
Rational discourse forbade personal attacks long before there was a Wikipedia. We forbid them on Wikipedia because we want rational discourse. But the problem is, the way things are phrased, we don't really forbid them as long as the target is external, and therefore, in that respect rational discourse is impaired. And that's precisely what is happening. The rationality of the whole "attack sites" discussion is impaired because one side does keep attacking those sites in personal terms; and they continue to slip up and attack editors because some member of that site (such as myself) are editors. Discussion of those sites should be held to the standards of other discourse in Wikipedia, especially including citations when claims are made.