I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.
'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'
His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.
So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.
Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.