>>I accept your reluctance to publicize too much information and you have been generous so far in providing the information you have. I understand it is your site and you can manage it as you feel you need to. This is the reputation and integrity of a professional involved though so one question I feel does indeed need an answer in order to feel comfortable continuing to use the site: was the same algorithm run against all members?
>
>When I have to make an intervention like that, it is because it has reached an extreme level. Basically, I collect as much data as I can at first. Triggers can come from what I saw, complaints I received, phone calls, emails, the weird behavior that a member is having on site and so on. Then, level two would be to try to identity what or who is behind all this and see if certain measures have to be taken. As oppose to the first years of the product, since the 2001+ years, I have showed more tolerance to those who are playing borderline with the T & C of the site. Because, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to sleep, eat and support this site. As oppose to Facebook who has an entire department at looking up at everything, the story is, of course, totally different here. I guess in 1993, when the idea came, and we became commercial in 1996, that I could have taken the opportunity to expand to the general public and go social. Then, by now, I would have had an entire team just to handle this so I could concentrate on something else. Zuckerberg idea was great. He revolutionized the way the Internet is today. For how long that would last, I do not know. But, for those who haven't seen the movie, it is called The Social Network. I watched it three nights in a row.

Michel, unless you have more proof on record that you are not sharing, publicly casting the blame on anyone is concerning to me. Merging of accounts leaves you open to libel suits because your actions damage the reputation of the individual in the online communities. There must be sufficient proof to show those posts came from someone other than "Grover." Are you that sure of your evidence? While it is your prerogative as owner to ban anyone you see fit, the merging of accounts is another matter and very concerning. You constantly claim this is foremost a professional forum and professionals do use it. By blocking Kevin's emails (you stated you did so at the firewall level), you have not given him the opportunity to question his banning nor have you responded in anyway directly to him or notified him of his banning or your suspicions (by your own account). Nothing against the T&C was ever posted under his account that I am aware of. There is no assurance for any other members that the same will not happen to them at some point in time. We do not know if you will decide at a later date one of us posted under an alias and merge accounts and show messages we did not post under our name -- and inflammatory ones at that. At a minimum:

1) run your algorithm against all members - do others who monitored Grover or the incendiary thread (or not even) meet the same criteria you are using as proof it was Kevin?
2) compare ip addresses (was Grover's ip ever the same as anyone else?)

If you do not do those two items at a minimum, I recommend you un-merge the accounts until you do.