I think you guys are missing the fact that other currently active users are present in the conversation where trol and other users said they would "share" joeltheginger, including players who are presently major figures in important nations.
I'm not saying that the server has to take a "boys will be boys" attitude where, if multiple people say something, then it must be OK. But on the other hand, to avoid target-bans, it is appropriate to see if the one player being reported is solely at fault, and if not, who else was, etc.
So if you're dealing with a situation where it's like "this guy did X 4 years ago, but many of his currently-unbanned friends laughed and played along with it," then you have to either treat them all the same, as if they all stayed that way forever, or consider "maybe he was just in a shitty environment, as were (possibly) they, and has reformed since". Which is ig where the unban decision has come from. idk, I thought it was a risky decision at the time--like "if one of them makes a thread abt feeling unsafe on the server because of this, the server's done for" , and I'd also love for the guy to be banned because it'd mean one less PVPer to fight aagainst Aaun--but I'm not gonna lie here (for once!). I've known this guy since like Anthos, 2013, and I did not know about the comments he was banned for until long after, but I have never thought there was anything creepy or threatening about his behaviour, so I can understand the admin decision that he only said what he said as an outburst based on what was normal in the environment he was in at the time.
LOTC was, and still is to a lesser extent, full of crazy insults and derogations in private chats, and the logs present show active unbanned players laughing and chatting as Charlemagne said the stuff he should apparently be re-banned for, so rebanning him without rebanning all of them just demonstrates peak bias.