This page has been created in accordance with the Transgressions Procedure for Lifetime Bans.

Update 29 January, 2002: Since the decision below was posted, the Technical Team has analysed the h2g2 logs, and there is conclusive evidence that the Quincy, Satyagraha and wall flower girl accounts were all operated from the same, single machine. As we have conclusive evidence that LeKZ opened and operated the wall flower girl account, this proves that these accounts were indeed operated by a banned Researcher.

Satyagraha has been banned from h2g2 for life. The explanation can be found below.

Representations by and on behalf of Satyagraha were considered at the time of the ban, but the Editors' decision is final. Further correspondence on this subject will not be entered into by the Editors. If you wish to discuss the ban or events surrounding it, we'd appreciate it if you did it here, as Conversations are much easier to follow if they occur on one place. Thank you.

The h2g2 Editors

The Editors' Decision

Reading the discussions here has been an interesting experience for us - as with all events on h2g2 that stretch the way the Community runs and challenge what is perceived as the 'way things are done', there's been lots of debate on all sides of the argument. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

Some Clarifications

Before we discuss our decision to close Satyagraha's account, it would be instructive to clarify a few things that have cropped up in the debate.

Absolute Proof

There have been a few Postings saying that unless there is absolute proof that an account is being operated by a banned Researcher, we should not close it. Let's ignore for a moment that fact that the Terms and Conditions give the Editors the right to close any account at any time - we're aware there's a difference between what we can do and what we should do.

We believe that only closing accounts where there is absolute proof of wrongdoing is not in the interests of this Community, and we will not take that line. The Internet enables people to remain anonymous in a way that is extremely difficult in the real world, and this is where the traditional judicial concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' fails to apply, whatever our moral upbringings might make us feel. If we promise to only ban accounts that are demonstrably breaking the rules, we put ourselves at the mercy of banned Researchers with obsessive, destructive, antisocial or manipulative tendencies, and we are not willing to take that risk with h2g2. A lot of work has gone into building h2g2 from both the Editorial and the Community sides, and currently there is no way in which we can implement a replica of the real-world judicial system.

So, for the moment, we do not accept the argument that absolute proof is required. We will, however, always make a decision like this to the best of our abilities and with the interests of the Community at heart.

Returning Researchers' Behaviour

We've mentioned in passing that we don't really mind if a banned Researcher returns and doesn't cause any problems (please note we haven't said that it's OK until they break the rules - that's certainly not the case). Looking at it logically, it's trivial for a banned Researcher to open a new account, so some banned Researchers will return. However, if they operate the new account so that nobody suspects that they are a banned Researcher, and they operate the new account so that nobody gets irritated with their behaviour, then there isn't really a problem.

However, with all the recent accounts that have come under scrutiny - Silent Lucidity, Quincy, Satyagraha, wall flower girl - we have received complaints from Researchers saying that they believe that a banned Researcher is back, and that they're causing problems within the Community. As soon as this happens, we consider that account holder to be liable to investigation, and if there is enough evidence to convince the Editors that something is afoot, we will take action.

We will be particularly unsympathetic to accounts which appear to have been opened simply to protest that they shouldn't have been banned in the first place, to continue discussions or arguments on behalf of that Researcher, or simply to open old wounds.

Anonymous Communication

We also defend the right for Researchers to email us privately about suspect accounts. In cases where the alleged operator of an account is known to harass people in real life, the right to anonymity is a very sensible precaution. Saying that people are cowards for not posting in public is completely missing the point of the transgressions procedure.

Closure of Satyagraha's Account

We are closing Satyagraha's account because we have reasonable grounds for suspicion that it is being operated either by a banned Researcher; by someone who is posting content from or on behalf of a banned Researcher; by someone who is interpreting ideas from a banned Researcher and posting them up; or through some other set-up that is not in the interests of this Community. We do not have absolute proof that the account is being abused in these ways, but there is considerable circumstantial evidence that has not been explained to our satisfaction.

Whatever the truth behind this account, we are not willing to host it, as we do not believe keeping this account is remotely in the interests of the Community.

The main points are:

• Lies - As can be seen from our correspondence with Satyagraha, Satyagraha initially denied everything with the words 'I don't lie. It is not my nature, religion, nor is their any reason for me to lie'. After we traced his account to the same ISP in Denver, Colorado as used by LeKZ (and, indeed, exactly the same IP number), he sent us another email with a completely different story and an explanation of 'why I lied'. Lying in this way casts a serious doubt on the truth of anything Satyagraha has said, especially as his claims don't contain proof, only opinions.

• Style - We have received a number of communications from Researchers saying that they find the style of Satyagraha's h2g2 Postings and emails to be remarkably similar to those of the banned Researcher LeKZ. Satyagraha also showed an amazing affinity with the areas of the site and specific subjects beloved of LeKZ, and these stylistic similarities were enough to make us very suspicious of this account in the first place. Nothing Satyagraha has emailed us has changed our minds; indeed, Satyagraha's email style is extremely similar to that of LeKZ, and although this could be a coincidence, without any cooperation from the author we treat this similarity as suspicious.

• Location - It seems a considerable coincidence that Satyagraha should be living so very close to LeKZ, to be posting in a similar style to the same areas of a small, relatively unknown site, and to be refusing to cooperate when asked. At the same time the accounts of Quincy and wall flower girl, who are both using the exact same local US ISP as Satyagraha and LeKZ and are also based in the same area, have been closed for similar reasons - a number of Researchers are convinced that they are all being operated in a way that is connected with the banned Researcher LeKZ, and we agree that there is cause for suspicion.

• Communication - We find it odd that Satyagraha, who claimed not to know anything of LeKZ until his account was suspended, started to send all his email communication between the Editors and himself, and allowed her to distribute these emails around her friends. If you are being mistaken for someone who is banned, the worst way to convince people that you are completely unrelated is to start sharing all your communications (including those with the Editors) with that very person, especially given that person's history on site. Unless, of course, you're planning the whole thing as a set-up, which is a distinct possibility.

• Prior Knowledge - Suddenly turning up on h2g2 and instantly knowing so much about the site while acting like a Researcher who has been banned is highly suspicious. Unfortunately, even feigning ignorance doesn't make the deception complete; wall flower girl's account has also been closed for being operated by LeKZ, and wall flower girl's main contribution to this site seemed to be to prompt Barton for lengthy explanations of issues that LeKZ thought were relevant. Unfortunately this was totally transparent to a number of members of the Community, the Editors included.

Moving On

h2g2 is a growing, developing site, and every event like this makes us think about the rules and how they should be implemented. We would like to point Researchers to the following discussion areas, which we think are relevant to this issue.

• Proposal for a Bozo Filter
• Why permanent bans should be permanent
• Proposed addition to the House Rules
• How can I prove who I am?