While I usually disagree with SHARK when we talk about politics, his posts about RPGs are among the best on this site (interestingly enough, in his games SHARK does seem to explore ideas very far from his political leaning - even in Hearts of Iron IV he is playing the Russians!)
I checked that thread. The Pundit issued a threadban and a warning to a list of people who were posting off topic. Some of them immediately posted off topic again and were banned. No qualms about that. SHARK too posted after the warning but deleted both his posts at once (as the time stamps prove). Maybe he posted something before checking the thread, then he saw the warning and complied. Since The Pundit didn't ban him for this, I think that we can all agree that SHARK's actions proved his good faith.
Three months later he posted something extremely minor, basically a clarification. I can only agree that it was a memory lapse: it wasn't the kind of inflammatory OT that caused the warning, it happened three months after the warning and, as we saw, back then SHARK promptly complied.
I also kind of understand The Pundit's worrying (to be clear, only The Pundit knows what is in Pundit's head). Let's say that you establish "zero tolerance - out of ten". Then someone commits a level-one infraction. Everybody says "Come on! It was a minor infraction! Let's try to be flexible!" OK. But now you have a "one tolerance" policy, and this opens the door to "Come on, in was a two tolerance infraction! Let's try to be flexible!" And so on. When your policy is successfully debated once, it can be debated forever.
If SHARK is pardoned, what about Pat? And if this leads to Pat's pardon too, what about the next one in line? Where is, now, the cut off?
If this was my site, I would have said to SHARK: "Listen, it is clear that you fu**ed up in good faith, because you proved your good faith. PAY ATTENTION. Last warning." And, no, I never argued pro-Pat, and never will, as I agree with The Pundit in that case (and all the others). But this is not my site. I can only appellate to The Pundit's conscience regarding SHARK's specific case, while accepting what his final decision will be. His site, his rules.