No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really

don't

work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse

bad

faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well

with

other people at all.

This is true, but once they are banned they are banned. People who are merely difficult get editing restrictions - revert parole, civility parole. Giano is still there. SPUI left, unfortunately, but was not kicked out. Guy (JzG) ****** Basically, once a user is banned the burden of evidence shifts. That is, if a banned user wants to convince me of something then I expect them to verify it in a manner that holds up to scrutiny. That means they provide diffs and logic, and before I trust their version I check it out through other means to see whether that matches the whole story. Most of the time what banned users present is cherry picked evidence and half truths. That's been my field experience. The times when things do check out I'll work within the parameters of site policies to help them.

-Durova