Lets put it like this, while I am a Moderator of this subforum and a Super-Moderator of the forum at whole, I never banned Anita. The reason I never banned her was very simple, you could see the holes in her reasoning that only people of a particular religious indoctrination would not be able to see.
She doesn't offer anything *new* or undiscovered, it's just her personal interpretation from her angle, it's not science fact, in fact it would have been better to identify it as being more a Philosophy (Humanities) rather than try to identify it as a Science.
To my knowledge there is no group or individual that is apart of the moderation or administration staff here that is here to "Shush" anything. That would just be paranoia on your part.
A troll is someone that starts a discussion here with the knowledge that no matter what direction the discussion goes, they are going to be single minded in regards to their reasoning, not considering other peoples views or reasoning and pretty much posting just to wind members up.
Anita had some aspects of that, in fact You Anthony B also have some aspects of a Troll. However again you'll find we'll grant you enough rope to hang yourself in the long run, this will seem a liberalised attitude, but it's obviously necessary otherwise if we just culled those that were problems we'd gain such posts as yours more constantly.
Initially she posted her website and book URL constantly as apart of her self promotion effort, that is technically spamming but she was asked from refraining on doing that and she did eventually lessen the occurrences.
That is the state of the whole internet now, not just this one forum. We try to keep people amicable, however we can't babysit every teenager or tell adults that likely suffer this or that social problem to behave, they don't listen, the won't listen and for the most part they do what they want. We could get draconian and remove all those problems, all the stupid people and notably all those that want to deal in politics and religion, but you'd find the science discussion here would resolve to a crawl.
It can also be seen as a "Baptism by Fire" or "Running the Gauntlet" if someone truly has a discussion or view that is worth something, you'll find that the responses here can be very intelligent, if what they are peddling is a "Snakeoil" you'll find them getting run out of town pretty quick.
Again this is dishonesty, she was likely banned because of the amount of rhetoric that occurred in this subforum and was likely banned because various members complained that what she was peddling is not "Science" and how her portrayal of her work as "Non-Fiction" was dishonest.
There is one other point about "Bans", while a "Permanent Ban" states it's permanent, there is always the opportunity for an old member to apologize or refute the reason they were banned, obviously that would require them email the sciforums admin but you'll find for the most part they just knock this site on the head and move to pastures greener. So if Anita could of attempted this rather than having someone attempt to support her endevours.