h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

GTB - I wasn't talking to you, personally. I was just addressing the general tendency of people to treat h2g2 as though it is a microcosm of the real world, with all the sorts of rights and privileges we have in the real world. "Right to face the accuser" doesn't, as I said, even apply in all trials, for perfectly sound reasons. "Innocent until proven guilty" is equally a fine principal, but as I've said over and over again, if *you* personally want to finance the infrastructure to make the application of that principle to this website practical, I'm sure the Editors would be very grateful for the several hundred thousand pounds donation every year. Alternatively, you might like to the canvas the community for donations - good luck...



Lentilla wrote: "I'm starting to believe that every researcher should stand on their own merits - if they do something to warrant a ban, that membership is removed. They would be free to create another one and continue. "

OK - that's an interesting principle. Consider this, to test your commitment to your principle. Say I started an account here at h2g2. Say the FIRST thing I did after joining was take a liking to you and go to your personal space and proposition you. Say that you rebuffed me (who could blame you?). Say I got angry at that, and threatened you physically. Say I got banned for that. So far, so no problem.

Except I start a new account the same day, and do it to someone else. I get banned again. Great.

So I start ANOTHER account, two days later, and this time I learn a *tiny* little bit, and don't proposition you. I come back to your personal space, and talk nice and friendly - I even say "what a nasty guy that was, propositioning you and all. I'd NEVER do that to you". You suspect it may be me again - maybe you only have a 30% suspicion it's me, based purely on style and stated interests. You email the editors, because I bother you just by *possibly* being the guy who propositioned you.

They email back "yeah, sure it's him again, he told us, but he's behaving this time, so there's no need for us to worry. What the hell is *your* problem?". Would that make you happy? Would even want to use the site again? Or would you be mad at the editors for letting a pervert back into the place you've been using for so long, just because he can click the "Register" button more than once? Just curious...



"Well, it's sorta like a trial; but not really. "

Spot on, especially the second bit.

"The "Ban/Don't Ban" threads are - I think - 'witnesses' for both the defense and the prosecution"

Actually, what the original version of this procedure states is that it "will allow the management to assess the general "quality" of the person they are about to consider banning by judging the company they keep".

It was never implied that postings here would or could be considered as substantive information about the person under suspension. The procedure was intended to give the suspended person a chance to defend themselves before the final axe fell (a chance that both people under discussion have apparently chosen not to take advantage of) and to allow whatever acquaintances they have to (a) testify to their good character and value to the site and (b) debate the "bannability" of whatever specific action led to the suspension.

Of course, the procedure was intended for "the next LeKZ" - i.e. someone else, someone who had done something specific on site, and which the management wanted to ban them for. It was intended to minimise management aggravation by allowing decisions such as banning on the basis of the X post to be debated for a set amount of time. It was intended also to take the "heat" out of management decisions, by setting out a fixed time for the decisions to be made over.

It was never intended for use in cases of suspected fraudulent use of accounts by suspended or banned researchers, but on the other hand, that's what you get for insisting it's used EVERY time...

This procedure is obviously pointless at this stage, because good character is irrelevant. The only question under consideration is - is it/are they LeKZ? Nobody posting here, and I mean *nobody*, can offer anything substantive to the Editors. On the other hand, both the people under discussion CAN - if they choose to, and if they are who they say they are. That is their business. But the fact that this is a question of identity, rather than of an offense of onsite behaviour (the way the banning due to the X post was) makes any debate here academic. I don't want Quincy banned, but the only information of any use or even relevance to the Editors can ONLY come from him - and it's obviously not coming from him, or this whole mess would be over by now and he'd be back.

So, accepting that all this is pointless, and moving on...

One of the stated aims of this procedure when I wrote it was that it "will allow the management to assess the general "quality" of the person they are about to consider banning by judging the company they keep". Reviewing the list of people posting here and to the "Don't Ban Satyagraha" thread, it is striking how high the proportion of people posting were members of the original FoLKZ list and are now on the TrusT list mentioned above. It would not be much of a stretch to characterise "the company they keep" in both cases as mainly "friends of LeKZ". It may be worth pondering the impression *that* gives to the judge, jury and executioner in this (sorta like a but not really a) trial.

One final point. "copies of e-mails from both Quincy and Satyagraha"... "are markedly dissimilar to anything I have read by any of LeKZ". I'm very tempted here to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davis...

H.

there must be information that i haven't seen somewhere (no surprise there) but how do you know for sure that there hasn't been any evidence sent to the editors? they said so somewhere, right? i'd sure appreciate a link to that. thanks.


wfg

Aw, com'n, H: paraphrase. It will save me the time of looking it up. (I know, I know - I'll learn it better if I look it up myself, but it would personally save me some time.)

And I hope everyone knows that I wouldn't say something drastic like "markedly dissimilar" if I didn't believe it. And remember I take pretty much everything with a large grain of salt. It *is* my opinion; if I'm on a limb, I came came out here knowingly.

-7_it's_off_to_home_I_go_7

#Reviewing the list of people posting here and to the "Don't Ban Satyagraha" thread, it is striking how high the proportion of people posting were members of the original FoLKZ list and are now on the TrusT list mentioned above. It would not be much of a stretch to characterise "the company they keep" in both cases as mainly "friends of LeKZ". It may be worth pondering the impression *that* gives to the judge, jury and executioner in this (sorta like a but not really a) trial.#

I would hope that my own friends would come to my defence if I were accused as LeKZ is (if I had any friends at the time). It's Quincy and Satyagraha who have received the emails but her honour has once again been brought into question.
I don't think I'd spoken to either before now: indeed I stil haven't.
Although that proves nowt, since I never spoke a word to Silent Lucity either.

good point! and i'm not in any of those groups of friends of lekz (except i probably am her anyway) but i'm posting to say i don't think quincy or satyagraha should be banned because i didn't think they were the same person, and i don't think they'd be posting for somebody, and how can they be the same person if there's a trace for satyagraha but nobody even knows where quincy lives? or is there information that i missed again?

uselessly trying because i don't like people to be accused of anything if it's possible it isn't true and i haven't been satisfied it is true.

have a "blue loo brush" i've got extras.

wfg

wfg wrote: "but how do you know for sure that there hasn't been any evidence sent to the editors? they said so somewhere, right? "

Pay attention. I did NOT say no evidence had been sent. I have no idea what has or has not been sent to the Editors. However, since both these people remain suspended, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that no SATISFACTORY evidence has been sent. The Editors posted the information on Satyagraha's IP trace very quickly. It is reasonable to assume that if they received substantive evidence that Quincy is not LeKZ, he'd be back already, or at the very least the Editors would have posted notice that his suspension had been lifted. That hasn't happened, so, no evidence worth a damn has been sent. I don't intend to speculate as to why.



Paraphrase: Marilyn "Mandy" Rice-Davis was involved in the Profumo scandal in the 1960s. She claimed to have been "involved" with Lord Lambton. He denied it. When told in court by a barrister that he denied it, she famously replied "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

So, you've been shown copies of emails the styles of which are markedly dissimilar to LeKZ's. Well, er, they would be, wouldn't they? Let's face it - either they're actually from two other people, or they're from LeKZ - and I hope you're not suggesting that she's so dense that she'd fabricate emails from characters she made up, and then not bother to make them at least seem different to her, since that's the impression she'd be trying to give?

(a question occurs: Quincy and Satyagraha were obviously so "LeKZy" during their time here that people spotted it and complained. Have their styles of writing really changed so much in the last few days that they are now so markedly dissimilar? Again, just curious...)



Dastardly wrote: "I would hope that my own friends would come to my defence if I were accused as LeKZ is "

Sorry, Dastardly, I'm not sure I caught that. Did you *really* just say...

" if I were accused as LeKZ is"

I was personally under the impression that the person being accused *here* is Quincy, and kind of the whole *point* of this whole thing is that he's NOT LeKZ. If you think he IS LeKZ, Dastardly, I think you're posting in the wrong thread...

"her honour has once again been brought into question"

Hmm. Once again, indeed. The *last* time it was brought into question, it was suggested that "Silent Lucidity" might be LeKZ. She was REALLY ANGRY about that suggestion, and hotly denied it. She was publicly very annoyed. It was later proved that the "Silent Lucidity" account was being operated from her PC. Who, precisely, is to blame for any apparent lack of trust in her word, would you say? As usual, just curious...

And if you were accused Dastardly, I'd be there. On your side. As I am on Quincy's. If he's not LeKZ. Which he could easily prove. If he's not. And if he wants to. Which he may not, of course. And who could blame him?



wfg: If I propositioned and/or physically threatened you here, and got banned for it, and came back and did it again the next day under a different ID, and then again, and again, and again, and just kept on and on doing it from successive untraceable email accounts, and the Editors refused to do anything about it because it was JUST POSSIBLE that it wasn't me, would that settle your icky stomach? Would that make you feel good about this place for upholding justice as you see it? Or would you leave because you don't feel safe? As ever, just curious...

H.

Just for the record, while the FolKZ list was available for reading by all and sundry, it was necessary to join that list to post to it.

The TrusT mailing list is private and it's membership is not published. Hoovooloo is not a member and has never been a member of either list. He is not qualified to speak about the membership or character of the people who belong to the Trust list. I am the person in charge of that list. It's membership is no more a part of this discussion than is Hoovooloo's home address.


If some or even most (I have not taken the time or trouble to characterize those who spoke out in that fashion) of the people who have spoken out in favor of not banning Quincy or Satyagraha are friends of LeKZ (and some of them are) then they are uniquely qualified to make the judgment of whether these two people write as LeKZ writes. They have seen more of LeKZ' writing than anyone else.

The only reason Hoovooloo might have for raising such an issue in such a way is to suggest that merely knowing LeKZ is to be tainted by LeKZ. As if to say that each and every one of us is incapable of speaking our opinions honestly and truthfully in this forum.

If it comes to a question of honesty and truth in any matter that concerns LeKZ, Hoovooloo has admitted that he would lie for them and that he would attack them. One might well question whether anything Hoovooloo says in this forum, particularly given his perforance here, should be given any credence.

However, I believe that Hoovooloo honestly thinks he is being impartial and merely defending his own Modest Proposal. I belive that his actions demonstrate that he is frustrated because of the direction the postings here have taken.

Unfortunately, Hoovooloo's own postings have consistently lead this thread in precisely the direction he is now so meticulaously didactic in opposition to. His own postings have lead us all, in the face of our basic frustrations at being invited to participate in an exercise which Hoovooloo himself has correctly pointed out is ill suited to any purposte other than to concentrate that frustration in one central location.


Hoovooloo,

If you truly want the points you have made to make real sense, then you should stop doing yourself what you have condemned from the start. You should cease attempting to turn this forum, dedicated by the editors, to statements of opinion against the banning of Quincy, into some sort of argument or discussion of the merits of each statement as if you had some office to cross-examine and minimize.

Simply answering your arguments is an exercise in futility since it leads the thread's topic even further astray.

In short, This is not your thread. It is not here to serve you. You have stated your opinion about Quincy and there is no need for you to validate the process or the content of the thread. There was never anyway it could be controlled save by the voluntary efforts of the participants.

It is clear to anyone who read what you have written and what others have written to you that your agenda, however private, cryptic, or confused, has nothing to do with support of Quincy against being banned.

You are being rude and unpleasant. You are being pompous and supercilious (charges I have had leveled against me and which I therefore understand well) in support of that rudeness. You are using your 'logic' in an irrational if still intelligently constructed attack on the progress of this process.

Please, stop this. I will grant that you may feel that what you are doing is for the best in this instance. I for one am not interested in having you make that decision for me.


I have said that I am convinced that both Quincy and Satygraha are real people who are not LeKZ and are not posting for LeKZ. I have stated that I make that decision based on emails I have received from these two men. This is based on the content and my personal analysis of their styles of writing and that of LeKZ. It is based on my personal impression.

If you, Hoovooloo or anyone else, feels that this sort of testament is not adequate or poorly considered or simply words from an unreliable witness, post your attack in the BAN thread not this one. I am not here to debate with you or to justify myself to you. You don't matter to me here.

If you want to take issue with me for any part of what I have written here, then your argument is with me. It does not belong here any more than the rest of your tirade. Feel free to post at my page, to ignore me, or to rage as you already have. It really doesn't matter. All that matters here is that, Quincy and Satygraha should not be banned because neither person is LeKZ as they have been charged (Not that there is anything wrong with being LeKZ anywhere except here in the midst of this witch hunting hew and cry.)

Barton

*If* Qunicy's method of posting is not traceable, but Satyagraha's is, there is minimal or no evidence either way of whether they are or are not the same person.

*If* Qunicy's method of posting is not traceable, I'd guess that whatever influence may or may not be drawn from that depends on the reason why it's not tracable.

If it's just that whatever ISP the connection is made through covers a huge geographical area, and the IP address is different every time, presumably little/no information can be deduced from that.

If it is the case that connection has been made through some more elaborate method to avoid traceability, that still doesn't neccessarily mean that there is any connection, though I can understand why someone might consider that it gives pause for thought.

Thanks for that Barton. No danger of you being mistaken for anyone but yourself.

Since we agree that this thread is "ill suited to any purposte other than to concentrate that frustration", I'm actually >HORRORS< going to do what you suggest, and stop posting here.

I'd be interested if either Lentilla, wfg, Dastardly or anyone else have answers to the questions above. If you have, please bring them to my space. I mean it, I'm interested.

In conclusion: Don't Ban Quincy, unless he chooses not to prove he's not LeKZ.

H.

i think you're so far off topic that i'm not going to try to address what you asked me. as far as the editors necessarily posting everything relevant, there is no evidence of quincy's location. and the editors themselves said the IP trace of satyagraha was not conclusive, but you and lots of other people didn't think that part of the available information was important.

do you know for a fact that the editors would /not/ withhold information, when they have said they're withholding identities? i don't. i don't know what they do know and what they don't know. neither do you but you take a lot more words to say it and put a spin on it that makes it look like something other than it is -- which so far is not anything conclusive.

see? i do pay attention. i just don't always say anything.

but i think you're totally wrong in what you said to dastardly. yes quincy and satyagraha are accused. they're accused of /being lekz/ back again in two more incarnations to spook the nice people here and start flame-wars and give advice. but if the accusation, presented by the editors as truth, is that they are lekz, then it is she that is accused. brother. that's common sense. i'm not a know it all and i hope never to be. i think that's obvious and dastardly saw it too. if they aren't allowed to return, for whatever reasons, and you and i won't necessarily ever /know/ the truth, then whose name is tarnished? no one will remember them. it'll just be that lekz again.

please don't talk down to people, including me, like that. it's not very friendly or polite. and it doesn't really make you look good.

i don't know what you're so mad about but you're really not talking about defending quincy hardly at all. most people have been trying to. if that means the ones who know lekz say they know she's not him, same thing, it defends him. at least maybe you could stay on topic? he needs the help of articulate people. you're one. you said you wanted him back, so defend his postings or something. that would help. otherwise i'm not sure why you're saying these things and especially why here, and to me and dastardly and anyone in shouting distance. i don't like to be shouted at. i don't think most people do.

have a "blue loo brush". i didn't know that's what they were and i have extras.

wall flower girl

p.s. your last scenario is off-topic and i don't want to go into it here. if you really want to know my silly opinion you can ask me on my page or start a different thread on this one.

oops. sorry barton. we posted at the same time.

i still take exception to hoovooloo's statement that the editors should ban quincy if he chooses not to prove he's not lekz.

that wasn't part of the deal when he signed up, and i've read all about the british court thing and i didn't know "choosing not prove you aren't lekz" was grounds for permanent banning, but when you put it like that, that's exactly what it is, isn't it?

that's funny, or it would be, if three people's reputations were not on the line.


wfg

OK. I have not had the time, or the stomach, to read the backlog. But presumably MDs in the US are listed, as they are in the UK?

Surely if it can be demonstrated that there IS an MD with the name that Quincy has provided as his real name, and that his most recent appointment has been in NYC, then that would provide some reasonable doubt?

And equally presumably, Quincy himself would be able to provide the editors with details of where to get that information. The address of the US equivalent of the General Medical Council would be a good start.

I can respect the idea that Quincy might not want to offer the HR department of his most recent work-place as a suitable place for the beeb to be making enquiries. But public domain lists are public domain lists.

Ben

"But presumably MDs in the US are listed, as they are in the UK?"

Doctors who *practice* medicine must be licensed in the US, but this only includes doctors who see patients, not doctors who only do research or lab work (including pathology). Some non-practicing doctors chose to be licensed, others do not. Same things go with board registration (the other way in which doctors can be shown to be "real and legit" in the US). Licensing is a state-based thing, boards are professional organizations based on medical specialty.

Mikey

Back in June 2001, I posted a sentiment in a thread very similar to this one, saying something like: "Don't eulogise LeKZ."

It seems half the h2 community have done so. The other half haven't. She's just a person, guys, not a saint! This is not a criticism: I wouldn't like a saint as my friend. I have some idea (true or otherwise) of the reasoning behind HVL's points, and I have some idea (true or otherwise, and wholly speculative) of the reasoning behind Barton's points. H., you're noisily rude to people who put you down. Barton, you're noisily rude to Hoovooloo.

I can, and will, sit on any fence that's close by.

What has truly flummoxed me, though, is the absolute eloquence of people like wfg, who speak on behalf *of* LeKZ without (to my knowledge) actually having spoken directly *to* LeKZ! If you have, my apologies. If you haven't, please do some more background reading and personal research, and form your own opinions!

...

Relevant to this thread: I don't believe I've weighed in on the Quincy argument. No surprises, I don't often take sides. If Quincy contacts the italics with reasonable proof that he isn't LeKZ, then don't ban him. If he doesn't want to get back in touch, then let sleeping dogs lie. I'm sorry for anyone that is wrongly accused, but there are two possible reasons for him not contacting the Itlx: 1) He doesn't have an interest in h2; and 2) He's got no proof of being someone other than LeKZ. Well, Don't Ban Quincy. Unless there's no proof.

x x Fenny (Universal Tolerance usually means Sitting on the Fence)

Ben - There is a Posting on the subject of the identity of Quincy, which you will find here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82421?thread=160923&skip=0&show=20 (post 16). No opinion, I'm just helping you look! x x Fenny (UT)

Thanks. I'll check it out tomorrow.

Ben

The big problem, I think, Ben, is that some already think there is and always has been reasonable doubt while others assume there is and always has been unreasonable guilt. I agree with most folks that it ought to be a simple matter for Quincy to clear things up if s/he so chooses; but I would also completely understand hir reluctance to dignify such a charge with a response. As important as h2g2 and the friends I have made here over the last sevenmonthseven are to me, it *is* simply a virtual construct with little permanent impact in RL. (That opinion may change if ever I get on the hootoo payroll...)

Which slides wetly into my comment on my comments earlier regarding 'writing style'. A perhaps unfortunate tendency of my own postings is to try mightily to end with a joke/smart remark/pun/whatever: a throwback to my "always-leave-'em-laughing" training. I am perfectly aware of the ability of someone as intelligent as LeKZ to adapt their 'signature' style into whatever communicates the right idea in the right manner to the right audience. But there are certain vocabulary choices, grammar construction and - particularly to me - rhythm to someone's writing that are unique and very difficult to submerge. (In PlayClayBoyToy's case, there's a singularity to the spelling that is pretty difficult to replicate...) Silent Lucidity began to sound (to me) like some of LeKZ pretty early in the game, and - if I remember correctly - one of the damning "dead giveaways" was his habit of using to break up long text passages. (Initial credit for such use - if I remember correctly - goes to GTBacchus. Let's give 'im a big hand folks, ok?)

There are others on h2g2 whose syntax, phrasing and smiley use still remind me of LeKZ. The e-mails I mentioned above do not. I don't hope that my opinion will change anything , but I offer it for what it's worth. I continue to believe that Not Banned Yet's 'testimony' is sufficent, and a subsequent lifetime ban of either party based on the allegations as they now stand would be hasty and wrong.

Talk about a ball of sting...

-7_oops_I_did_it_again_7

quincy wasn't around long enough for me to really get to know but from what i did see of him in the thread we shared he seemed fine to me. i saw nothing that would make me want him banned. i was actually sorry to see his page missing .
pardon me for being a bit of a worrywart but what if he really isn't this lekz? i mean you've just condemned an innocent newbie that we are supposed to be being friendly to. call me crazy but if we become so paranoid that we begin thinking every newbie who might happen to have a vocal personality is lekz then aren't we destroying the sight? i mean you can only ban so many people because they 'might' be lekz. remember Salem? took them a long time to realize they were being paranoid, cost a lot for quite a few people. do we really want to possibly loose someone on this sight that could possibly have great knowledge to share with us on the grounds that he/she might or might not be someone who upset us in the past?
on the off chance that quincy is lekz (which i really don't believe he is) what is the problem with he/she coming back as long as he/she behaves. ok, ok...i understand a 'lifetime' ban but get real here, this is the internet where if you really want to you can be anyone and noone will know.
just thinking here and voicing my opinion...all that hot air i've just typed up there can be shrunk down to a simple 'don't ban quincy'.
Monsy

"Ben - There is a Posting on the subject of the identity of Quincy, which you will find here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82421?thread=160923&skip=0&show=20 (post 16)." It's also worth pointing out that much of the information in that posting was factually incorrect. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82421?thread=160923&post=1653793 Mikey

hi fenny,

i don't know you and i am bowing out of this discussion and this website as of tonight my time. but i'd like to say a couple things.

one is that i haven't been "eloquent in defense of lekz" because i know or am friends with or am her, but because if it was you or anyone else i'd do the same thing. i got into this mess because i thanked quincy about something he said, and he emailed me and nby in desperation. if nby is willing to stake his reputation here, and he lives with lekz, his name is on the line and i'm defending that too.

second, i'm an academic brat and a professional student. so sue me if i know how to talk. i don't, really. i can't do it face to face. but if it comes to writing and making sense of what i read, i can. that's about the only thing i'm really any use at. i see the manipulative and prejudicial nature of the editors' accusations. i did the first night. i'm leaving the site, because this has been making me miserable and when the fun stops being fun, don't do it any more! i have enough with academic politics thank you.

third i don't know about any "eulogies". i've seen plenty of hostility, insults, derogatory remarks, and "that bloody woman" which if i've got my british slang right is much stronger and nastier there than it is here. i don't think anyone's "eulogized" anybody. i don't know where you're getting that, and i won't read your reply, because i'm quitting the site, and it's off-topic, but i thought i'd say the level of hatefulness is amazing to me. "eulogy"? if it's here, i sure missed it. that happens, but not as much as people think.

fourth, i don't know if i agree that your way of doing "universal tolerance" is a good thing. i'm timid and would rather people didn't argue, and really hate political and religious arguments. but if we want people to be decent to each other we'd better start with communication, and understanding, in my opinion. that's what forced me to open my mouth for somebody the first time. i still can't do it for me. i will do it for other people.

really sorry to bail out on you people, but this is over my head.


have a "blue loo brush"

wendy
wall flower girl

post to my space to pre-emptively start the "don't ban wall flower girl" thread.