When I suggested indefinite block, by no means did I mean block forever... That came out weird... but if you see some of the arbitrators logs you'll see arbitrators blocking people indefinitely for injunctions. My intent was to block until he perhaps promises to be good, as you may see that I have some unblocks in my logs for this reason. With copperchair that didn't seem to work, yet it did with Adamwankenobi/The Wookieepedian. However when the arbcom bans someone for a year, the person can't come back in any incarnation, even if they start being good. Thus I don't think bans should ever be used unless the user has exhibited sockpuppet behavior, because then you're just blocking a bad user the chance of becoming good, plus bans don't come with a filter on their browser blocking from all sites with 'wiki' in their URL.
But I'm off topic. After some of the behavior shown by Silverback, I'm honestly not a fan of the guy when he calls me a rogue (heh, spelled it rouge at first...) administrator for blocking him for 24 hours relating to 3RR. Perhaps when I typed up the email I was frustrated at him, as he seems to be attacking El C, 172, and several others, and I'm never really a fan of attacks.
I feel I should also address the one year ban thing once more. I notice that just cause its the limit, its the most often used ban. (also notice I suggested blocking Silverback indefinitely, not banning. As arbitrators especially you should know the two mean all the difference in the world.) Like I remember the Cool Cat case for one where a 1 year ban was suggested, where IMO he did nothing specifically even BLOCK worthy, let alone the maximum possible BAN.
But this has gotten too ranty. Cheers.
-Red