I don't see why that is banworthy or even against community norms; my other accounts all have positive karma and good upvote/downvote ratios, and I used them for the obvious non-antisocial reasons.

The same reason there is a law against vigilante justice. In many individual cases it's probably ethically justified but I certainly support a general rule against it. Because I don't trust the judgement of all those other f@#$s so take the cooperative mutual suppression of the behavior as the best option.

The appropriate response to willfully ignoring a rule that I approve of for practical reasons is (all else being equal) to encourage the enforcement of said rule. (At the time and without prejudice. Not now or with personal enmity.)

IIRC you accused me of being TillNoonsome et al, which is false; the real person behind those accounts offered to reveal their identity to clear my name, but I declined, 'cuz at that point there wasn't really any need for it.

I don't recall the details but I'll believe you if you say I guessed the specifics incorrectly.

Also you might have noticed that I haven't engaged in any "insane trolling" for years now.

True, and at your worst you were never remotely as bad either in trollishness or in rule violation as many that are welcomed. There certainly should be a 'statute of limitations' on punishment for mostly-harmless multiple account use years ago. Especially given that a blind eye is turned on actually abusive cases.

There is no justifiable reason to ban me; the only reason Eliezer would do so is, of course, that he's a punk-ass bitch.

That's... entirely fair. I'd perhaps add 'socially oblivious and incompetent at practical rationality' in there too. It would not be smart, for the reasons Vladimir attempted to explain.