>>Michel, have you got independent parties whom you could discuss the evidence with and who could give the UT a totally impartial opinion in respect of its efficacy? i.e. do you have a panel of people on whom you rely or is it just yourself? If the latter it might be worthwhile to ask a 3rd party to express an opinion in case anything was missed?
>
>That is an excellent suggestion. Newspapers call this person an ombudsman. Other organizations use arbitration panels. I don't think these things would be needed very often on the UT but they would defuse thoughts that Michel is judge, jury, and executioner or that the banning process is not transparent enough.

Let me be clear; I am not at all interested in the outcome of this issue or in extending it in any way. I am also not suggesting to put the matter to arbitration since it's Michel's site and he can do whatever he wants. However, I am concerned that a few people appear to think Michel must be wrong (which I think is hugely unfair since he stated he has 15 pages of evidence - not just some correlation of postings) and I'm suggesting a way for him to put the matter to rest if he feels like going the extra, extra mile.