Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting insults on a website attacking Wikipedia. He posted links to a quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home address and his "followers". I was out of town and frightened enough to have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period. I don't think anyone disputes the ethics of this. (Fortunately, he was arrested on felony charges in an unrelated matter, and as far as I know, he's in prison now.)
I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly (but only slightly) less obvious.
--Jimbo