joshua.zelinsky@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