In the relevant period, there are 26 individual BAUT members who are mentioned in the BAUT Banned Posters Log (some appear more than once), whose banning seems to be directly related to posting in the ATM section.

The top four reasons cited may be summarised as (rank order):
- 'Civility and Decorum' ('C&D', almost always an ad hominem attack) - 12
- 'refusal to answer' (more often than not, quite explicit) - 9
- 'hijacking' - 7
- 'promotion' (of ATM idea, outside ATM section) - 3

The other reasons cited are: hit&run, soliciting, religion, and deleting posts. Although several bannings were for 'sock puppetry', I didn't count these.

Of course, someone may have been banned for several reasons; I counted every reason ("so the totals exceed 100%").

If we break down the stats by permanent (sole reason), non-permanent (sole reason), then here's my summary:
- C&D: 6 (4), 6 (5)
- refusal: 6 (0), 3 (3)
- hijacking: 4 (3), 3 (2)
- promotion: 2 (1), 1 (0)
- rest: 6 (2), 0.

Pace VanderL, no one was banned, even temporarily, for answering "I don't know".

Similarly, no thread was closed solely because the ATM proponent said "I don't know".

Clearly, BAUT takes its civility and decorum rule very seriously - in fact, three 'mainstreamers' were banned solely for this reason (one permanently).I was wrong*; there are none.

VanderL may still be right ("And contrary to what some people have asserted here’ "I don’t know" is not a valid answer for an ATM proposer. It can get you banned, or it can get the thread closed, or both."), if you feel that "I don't know" is the ultimate cause (and 'C&D' or 'refusal', say, merely the proximate cause). I'd be curious to know if anyone feels such a case could be made.

*Clearly, I wrote too quickly: "my impression is that VanderL's assertion would apply to only a tiny minority of cases" - I should have said "may"