joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The aim of creating some kind of policy or
guideline to cover the
issue is to give editors a road map of how to handle this type
of problem to minimize the disruptions that have resulted from
off-site harassment. Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't help.
No one is claiming the off-site harassment doesn't exist or that
off-site
harassement is not disruptive. The observation being made is that this form of
attempting to deal with it, by banning links, appears to be creating more
disruption than it is stopping.
It's even worse if folks are saying that it does exist but that we
shouldn't do anything about it. Again, I think that having a clear
policy with bright lines will help us reduce the disruption caused by
people who are trying to cause disruption by engaging in inappropriate
harassment.
The "other forms" of dealing with the solution include private
diplomacy, an ArbCom-maintained blacklist, and similar non-transparent
procedures. Personally, I think a clear policy is better, but if we
can't form one then then we'll have to continue to handle these issues
on an ad hoc basis, even though those tends to be the most disruptive.
W