Responses 

I am not in a position where I will be able to correspond extensively on this matter, but I thought I owed it to everyone to try and put together a few general responses.
Yes, I should not have used the "are you now or have you ever been?" sort of construction, and I've modified it per MONGO's suggestion.  While I've seen Malleus' behavior over time neglect basic civility, it was incorrect for me to assume that it's always been that way.
No, the statement was not a personal attack.  The reactions alleging that I've been attempting to "unperson" Malleus are hyperbolic and simply not true.  Malleus does not conform to the fourth pillar.  One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social conract.  While my earlier thoughts had been running along the lines of one must endorse all the pillars, that puts an emphasis on belief rather than conduct. 
One can be banned after making many valuable contributions to Wikipedia.  The various persons who are banned: Jack Merridew/Bre'r Rabbit/Gold Hat/etc. is not an unperson.  Betacommand is not an unperson.  Will Beback is not an unperson.  I would argue that my statement could be equally applied to any of them or other banned users for a similar reason: each of them failed to uphold the fourth pillar, although in a variety of ways and intensities, and was banned for that.  Malleus has the distinction of being the most prolific content creator being up for a ban in my memory.  The content he has created has is not in question, and he has had an admirable pattern of contribution to the encyclopedia... but that's not sufficient.  Much like Betacommand, Malleus has been shown repeatedly that his style of interaction is insufficient, and he has chosen to continue it. No one has proposed that Malleus' contributions be erased, that his name be stricken from anywhere or anything.  Bans don't do that, and the proposed ban would not have been any different than any other ban.