John Robinson wrote:
User JRR Trollkien [...] was blocked by an administrator before he had made 20 edits. [...] c) at least a month of which was caused by some sort of crazy departure from the case itself ("JRR Trollkien is an offensive name". Where did that come from? Why was that even put forth?)
The reason for the discussion of the username is that the initial block was justified on the basis of his username, along the lines of "the name JRR Trollkien is obviously implying he is a troll and therefore should be banned". The discussion was therefore whether this was a legitimate reason to ban a user. Content did not enter into it, as he was banned before anybody even had a chance to complain about his content. Subsequently, some content complaints have also emerged, but there is far from consensus on the matter.
I'd suggest your frustration may stem from the fact that you take a particular viewpoint on who ought to edit Wikipedia that not everyone here does. Wik, for example, has quite a few people calling for him to be banned, but also quite a few people who do not think he ought to be banned. In many cases both sides are equally at fault (many of the people Wik has been in edit wars with could just as easily be ban candidates themselves), so unless we are simply going to be banning lots of people left and right, it takes some time to sort out the few cases in which there is absolutely no option but to ban people. I also don't respect the "good contributors have left because of Wik" argument either. That's a temper-tantrum sort of "people didn't do what I wanted so I'm going home!!" thing, and I don't think we can let that sort of thing influence Wikipedia decisions. For what it's worth, good contributors would also leave if we banned Wik, and far more would leave if we were regularly banning people, especially people in relatively borderline cases.
-Mark