On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anonymity plus disruption. If we can ignore it it's not a problem worth pursuing... But note that even when identified, disruption is the central problem with almost the same solutions. Anonymity isn't a central issue. Yup. I think when the first email message we see from a particular source is obviously disruptive and off-topic, we do not need to wait for a larger statistical sample before acting. If the disruptiveness was the result of a misunderstanding, we can correct that when we receive the apology. I think Jordi misspoke, and we should not make a policy of doing what he said in his answer to Brian. But I haven't seen anything thus far to suggest to me that the action taken was the wrong one.