Something to remember is that each one of these tactics also has those rare times when it is valid and important and normal to do.

That fact is why groups fall apart.  The tactics are two-pronged: if you allow the behavior, capacity is taxed from handling it, if you ban the behavior, effectiveness is lost from being unable to use it when needed, and if you exclude and isolate the behavior people using it can outcompete you.

There are solutions but all take some labor and capacity and have risk.

One of the risks is of the people obstructing the list learning who is directing the solutions, and what patterns the solutions have.  It can then become simple for the disruptors to have a meeting around the new solution and put a secret countersolution into play.

Another risk is of excluding real valuable members, as described above.

I believe a really important solution to hold a common behavior of talking about the issue and current strategies to handle it.  My experience is this norm can quickly fall apart, and to me basically that indicates that people have been maliciously influenced in some way.

So, I've been upholding the importance of anonymity here and there.  When people are more anonymous, it is more expensive to influence them.  I recommend nobody use their legal name, because it is very easy to find people based on a legal name, and it threatens an entire group to have people influenced.

It's not great because I'm using my legal name myself, but still :)