[Matthew]

BumphreyHogart was banned for holding multiple accounts. I banned him as "nado" years ago, and he came back with a new account.

That is all the reason I need for banning him.

But, to be nice, I'll give you a further reason -- his last XX posts have been increasingly adversarial towards me, to the point that no matter WHAT the topic, when I saw that he responded to a thread I was in, I thought to myself "oh boy, here goes..."

And furthermore, with every week I let him stay here, he seemed to be growing ever bolder and more insubordinate. He was making a game out of it, like a troll. It was getting ridiculous.

Let's put it this way: either he was a troll or a masochist (a glutton for punishment). If we are to take him at face value, it's a mystery why he ever "put up with" this forum.

Long story short, his banning was long overdue.

When someone crosses the line (sometimes for the 5th time), I sometimes delete a banned member's "last straw" post, for the sake of removing bad example. I make a judgment call on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the last post is ridiculous (and thus harmless), but other times it could be incendiary.

Fortunately this forum is run by a human being, rather than a machine, computer program, rule book, etc.

[Stubborn]

He was also McCork after he was Nado.

[Matthew]

The other day Bumphrey Hogart replied to this discussion saying that Cathinfo could expect more activity than the Te Deum forum since Cathinfo allows discussions on multiple views on the situation in the Church ( i.e. R&R, sede), and also allows discussions on Feeneyism.

Matthew, can you explain why he was banned?

By the way, that was not how BH phrased it, or he wouldn't have been banned. :)

You have distorted his last post into something quite innocuous. He was resorting to name-calling, including the ridiculous phrase "trad-cuмenical". What does that mean? There is only one True Trad Position? If there is, we human beings don't have it within our power to know it with any certainty.

But he was NOT that polite, and I chose to interpret his last post in light of all the other facts, including: his posting history on CI, his adversarial attitude towards me, the fact that he came back with a 2nd account without permission, the fact that he was previously banned, etc.

[TKGS]

BumphreyHogart was banned for holding multiple accounts. I banned him as "nado" years ago, and he came back with a new account.

That is all the reason I need for banning him.

Understand you had other reasons for banning him.  
For what it's worth (zero, but I thought it important to point out), I did ask him if he was "nado" on a PM when he first appeared after another poster said that he was (I'm afraid I am not able to distinguish posters by their style of writing as others seem to be able to do).  BumphreyHogart replied that he was not "nado" and really didn't know anything about that former member.

[Neil Obstat]

.
Fortunately this forum is run by a human being, rather than a machine, computer program, rule book, etc.

.
From what I hear you can get a robot set up to run a forum. .  
.

.
Imagine all the time that would free up!!
.

[MMagdala]

I don't frequent that board but unless something happened to the owner, it's very rude of him to not say something to someone, at least to one of the other moderators. That's just common courtesy, unless, God forbid, something happened to him. I will and we all need to, or at least should offer prayers for him just in case, because what if....?
 
If I posted there as I do here, i.e. all the time, I would strive to get in touch with him until I either got a reply or knew he was getting my inquiries but was purposely not answering. At any rate, for those who posted there and knew him at all, seems they should be vigilant about getting in touch with him.

I did, Stubborn.  I have his email address.  I have not received a reply.

[Stubborn]

I did, Stubborn.  I have his email address.  I have not received a reply.

I think that we should pray for him. 

[MMagdala]

I think that we should pray for him.

Completely agree.  (Am doing that.)

[rum]

Was Sbvyl ever a member on any other forums before starting Te Deum? I could never identify him, but assume he was a longtime member of some other forum, probably FE.

[MMagdala]

Was Sbvyl ever a member on any other forums before starting Te Deum? I could never identify him, but assume he was a longtime member of some other forum, probably FE.

Yes.  Suscipe Domine, and I think Catholic Answers and FE, but I could be wrong about the latter 2.  Definitely SD, just before TD.

[rum]

Did he have another handle on these other forums?

[AlligatorDicax]

Was Sbvyl ever a member on any other forums before starting Te Deum?  I could never identify him, but assume he was a longtime member of some other forum, probably FE.

Wasn't there someone who had the audacity to appear on CathInfo under the member-name or formal-portrait (i.e., avatar) of one of the most prominent traditional Catholic popes, e.g., Pope St. Pius V or X?   From the context, which was defending actions taken by a webmaster on a more-or-less competing forum, I inferred that it was one of that forum's founders.  Could that have been "Sbvyl"?

It's quite possible that I'm confusing the Suscipe Domine forum & founders with the Te Deum forum & founders.

[Jaynek]

Sbvyl was on FE for a short time, using that name, and was soon banned.  He then posted on Suscipe Domine, also using the name Sbvyl, starting in November 2013 until September 2014.  He stopped posting there shortly after starting his own forum.

He very briefly posted to CAF as a joke.  He started a poll on SD about how long it would take him to get banned from CAF and lasted there less than a day.  His posts were removed, so it it not possible to check what name he used.  It probably was sbvyl, since he used it on all  other forums that I know of.

Sbvyl does have an account here at CI, also under the name Sbvyl, with his usual avatar of a picture of Pius X.  He has written a few posts here defending his forum when it was attacked, but that seems pretty normal to me.

[Matto]

At Te Deum for a long time, Sbvyl seemed busy. I thought that he was occupied at work and didn't have the free time to look after his forum. When Voxx was a moderator Voxx spent a lot of time on the forum overseeing the forum and he made many many posts, but after he left to start his own forum there were not a lot of posts from the moderators including Sbvyl.

[Jaynek]

At Te Deum for a long time, Sbvyl seemed busy. I thought that he was occupied at work and didn't have the free time to look after his forum. When Voxx was a moderator Voxx spent a lot of time on the forum overseeing the forum and he made many many posts, but after he left to start his own forum there were not a lot of posts from the moderators including Sbvyl.

To be precise, Voxx did not leave to start his own forum.  He stepped down as a moderator at TD (not voluntarily) but remained there as a member. He started his new forum while a member at TD, belonging to both for months. He did post less often at TD once he had his own forum to look after, but he remained a member in good standing almost until the closing of TD.  There seems to have been some sort of problem in the last week or so of TD's activity, but since the forum is closed now it is not possible to see what that was.
I do agree that none of the other moderators were as active as Voxx.