Do we have any evidence they did that other than the comment you replied to speculating?

Is this sarcasm? Or are you saying that the onus of providing proof is not on the those making the claim, but instead that the onus of proof is on those who did not make the claim?

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to draw that conclusion.

Sure you can provide an alternative explanation?

Otherwise, that's the best we have.

> Sure you can provide an alternative explanation?

In terms of a possible explanation for why GitLab would take an action, was it considered whether the (disturbed?) user violated GitLab's Terms of Service? Is the assumption that GitLab didn't just enforce their ToS, but that they're instead more likely to be secretly acquiescing to backroom bullying between companies over specific users?

It seems clear that the Bitbucket devs paid bribes to Gitlab to ban this user to drum up anti-GitHub sentiment.