I would just like to point out that in 2011 the account "etlase" was squelched (not banned, but unable to post) and had roughly 30 posts deleted for being overly opinionated and anti-bitcoin. You can see in the posting history here, where the account was accused of being a professional troll by a global moderator, although there is a distinct lack of context available. Apparently russians later hacked the account after posting privileges had been restored.

My point is in addition to the seemingly valid claim that the rules can be arbitrarily enforced. That is of course at the discretion of the moderators, but keeping this up as an appearance of a technicality of breaking rules seems deceptive. I agree that anonymint goes too far on subjects that don't seem to have much merit, but there are many, many other situations where he has keen insight and those posts vastly outweigh the negatives in intellectual merit. He can be a loud, obnoxious, and negative voice so he gets the ban grease while 75% of the forum fills up with copypasta post spam (a rule violation) for signature campaigns.

I don't know what warnings he has received or what was the real original reason for his ban, but if subsequent bans are merely because of "ban evasion" maybe it's time to just drop it and let him post? If he is really mucking up individual threads, maybe allow the thread creators to turn them into moderated threads and moderate the discussion themselves?