My inexpert view of the problems with Cool Hand Lukes analysis: 1) Selection bias - a less random sample could not be procured. 2) Preponderance of circumstantial evidence 3) Relative paucity of convincing evidence among number 2 (except possibly "lipstick on a pig") 4) Presenting the results of an analysis based on the above as pointing with confidence to the result that the two users are the same person. In order to get really convincing evidence of this type, particularly in the absence of egregious disruptive effect (with the users in question as a _source_ rather than an object) on the community or content, you'd need to get a much larger randomly compiled sample set. You would need to establish baseline rates of correlation on a list (preferably long list) of behavior types. You would then need to establish that these two accounts deviate significantly from the expected rates of correlation associated with these behavior types. I would want to see how many other pairs or groups of accounts demonstrate similar rates of correlation, if any, and whether any of these pairs or groups could be proven as linked or not linked. That type of analysis is unlikely to be done in this case - not least because of the difficulty in obtaining such information in an acceptable way. I'm not asking you to do a full blown dissertation on this, and I don't think its necessary. My point is that the analysis as its presented does not support the conclusions drawn because the methods used are weak. If the conclusions here are so difficult to support, and none of the accounts have done anything individually to support a community ban, then the ban should not be considered and the matter should be dropped until more evidence comes to light. Nathan