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.
I don't personally hold such an absolute position. In exceptional cases, like the one you describe below, I'd agree that off-site actions should be taken into account.
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.
I certainly don't. I'd have done the same.
I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly (but only slightly) less obvious.
I consider them very different indeed. Amelekite made absolutely no attempt to link Wikipedian user names to real identities of people. Nor did he even imply that this was possible. Nor did he call for harassment of the people in question, even within Wikipedia. He called for monitoring of their actions and fighting what he perceived as their bias. He made no threats whatsoever, direct or implied.
He did use nasty vocabulary in referring to the people on his list. If he'd done it inside Wikipedia I would not have objected to a block. But since it obviously wasn't his intention that his rude words would ever reach the ears of the people he applied them to I feel that we should give less weight to them (but certainly some weight). I also feel we should give weight to the facts that he
a) edited in good faith on Wikipedia, as shown by his contribution log
b) called for any new recruits to the 'pedia to respect our rules and the Neutral Point of View
c) promoted legitimate user names and adherence to the rules as the best way of avoiding blocks.
Summing all this up I find the block unwarranted. I can understand that reasonable people may disagree and may want to give more weight to other aspects of the issue. It's a close call.
Regards, Haukur