Michael Levy writes:
> > Question:  do we as a group wish for this to continue, or
> > would we prefer to not have it at all?
> Is it really solvable in an open environment like this?

Yes, I believe that it is solvable on at least some levels; keep in mind
that there already is a precedence for removing a person from the list.

Some of the questions that I see include:

a)  Is this what the general population of the list wants to do?
b)  If so, what level of disciplinarian action is considered appropriate?
c)  Do we know what it is that we want as the net end result?
d)  What needs to be included in any process to maintain fairness?
e)  What to do with repeat offenses?

> We all know the problem stems from a single source who now has
> more time than ever to contribute.  :-)

It is much easier to say "who" the problem is than it is to precisely
articulate what it is that is the problem.  I'd prefer to solve the hard
part first and then see how it may apply to the first part.

> Repeated requests to desist have failed... will clear rules make any
> difference, I doubt it.... it is the nature of the beast!

I've been asked offline what the available options are.  First off, we need
to keep in mind that its a change in behavior to promote a more peaceful
coexistence that's the desired result, not banning an individual as a form
of revenge or whatever.  The following is merely a draft at this point and
should be viewed as progressive in nature:

First tier - an official rebuke by the list members for the behavior.

Second tier would probably be a probationary period of some sort.

Third would be to moderate the individual's postings.

The "Nth" tier would be that all of the above attempts at remediation have
failed and banning the individual is the only remaining course of action.

I'm open to suggestions, particularly to increase the number of available
options so as to increase flexibility in available responses.  Consider this
to be a personal challenge to be NEDishly creative :-)

> Tools exist to easily deal with it individually since it is a single
> source...

Agreed.   However part of the reason why this works for some is because
currently, it is but a single source.  Nevertheless, we have to recognize
that this strategy only really addresses symptoms of the problem instead of
the disease.

In a fashion, the question being posed is if the group as a whole would like
to have a global filter installed on said "problem".  Or perhaps some other
alternative that is considered beneficial.

Hope this clarifies,