I know wellkept gardens die by pacifism. Notice I did not say you shouldn't moderate. They also die by micromanagement and pitting users against each other. I've been running forums (some wellkept, others not so much) for over 10 years now so believe me I've had similar conversations from the opposite side more than I care to remember. My intention is not to cause you grief. However, soliciting up/downvotes would be called gaming/voting-rings if done by anybody else. And by prompting downvotes, it's not clear that 'you are not speaking only for yourself'. If the community was against timtyler, they would downvote spontaneously, without the prodding. Now the community's signal has been muddied, which is part of the problem.

All I'm saying is ammend the rules or uphold them. Sidestepping them is not a good place to go. In any case, I think I've communicated my point as clear as I could have, so I'll leave it here.

It's too inconvenient to downvote everything. At some point, it just feels like not being worth the trouble, you've already done it too many times, besides you won't even read what the user writes. A community analogue of banning a user must be a judgment about the user, not a judgment about specific comments. The number of users who disapprove of the user, not of specific comments. This requires a new feature to do well. Could be as simple as vote up/down buttons on the user page.