RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive20

Yo, stop unblocking Conservapedia trolls
I'd rather be doing something else than monitoring and cleaning up the dribble that's been splattered around these talk pages. "Coop this person if you don't like him". Who the hell wants to go through yet another Coop just for an asshole that should've remained yelling in his own validating platform? 21:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We used to always mock Ken for being too cowardly to debate us here, and for insisting on remaining on Conservapedia where he or his peers would block us pretty much instantly. I guess we can't do that anymore.-- "Shut up, Brx." 21:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't care if Ken gets to claim higher ground or whatever. He's already doing that regardless what we do. He's been a pain in the ass since he first signed up and I'm sick of having him around just for some people's entertainment and to no one else's benefit. 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RW isn’t solely for your entertainment, Lefty. AceModerator 01:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I never argued about "entertainment" on my end. It isn't a platform for """""""debating""""""" assholes who just so happen to be on Conservapedia, which Conservapedia isn't even relevant to our main goals any more. No one has ever told me how the fuck keeping these twats around is to anyone's benefit aside from the weak "they aren't breaking rules and if you don't like them ignore them". "Ignore them" is just a fucking feeble cop out to keep them here, that's all it is. 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RW is getting more and more like “What LGM thinks”. AceModerator 02:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And no, ignore them isn’t a “cop out to keep them around” - it’s to avoid people whining and moaning about people they don’t like. Ignore them. I don’t say that to keep people around - I do that because it’s the way adults do things. AceModerator 02:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still zero arguments for keeping him around and resorting to the weak cop-out and condescending (and wrong) "leave it to the adults". You're here to make a job a lot more tedious and hard than it should've been. Also, "what LGM thinks". I think we shouldn't keep assholes. Does that deviate from the community too much? 03:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But you’re ok keeping other assholes. I mean you’re an asshole and we keep you around. AceModerator 06:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You had to put me on the same level as Ken? Really? 06:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I’m calling you an asshole and that we put up with a lot of other assholes so what makes Ken so different? AceModerator 06:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the other assholes we put up? Elvis is King, DarkMaster2, Logicnsuch, UnlicensedThinker, Aeschylus, and a few recurring trolls such as the The Zeitgeist Movement spammer on were all removed from the wiki while HBC got sanctioned. Rob got cooped several times. Drive-by assholes we grant benefit of doubt but don't ban until they become annoying. Ken? He has no benefit of doubt. Anyone who didn't spend any time on Conservapedia would've reasonably binned him for disruptive edits.  06:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ace, your persistent belligerence is evidence that you are a lousy moderator. I am referring to your recurrent name-calling against fellow sysops. That is very poor form for being a moderator. Bongolian (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not all. He called others "wet idiots", "children", and "pearl clutching pansies" and constantly talks down to people with the appeals of "dealing things like grown-ups". 07:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ace I don't know in what universe LeftyGreenMario is an asshole. Zheesh. I think you're just self projecting at this point. I have been with you up until now (in terms of supporting your right to your passionate point of view...not that I agree with it) but now you're just being a really shitty rationalwikian (and moderator) with your spectacular dickishness. Consider not being such a confrontational dick and, you might actually accomplish some of your goals. Shabi DOO  07:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still stunned of the accusation that he accuses me of treating the RationalWiki as an extension of my viewpoints or he accuses RationalWiki as a whole for toeing my views, it's not very clear. I'm relieved there are people showing up to validate what I'm saying, but what am I exactly doing to curry favor with people? Ace, you need to think about that, and assume people are smart and competent, not just trying to play nice with me. 07:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He's projecting. — Oxyaena Harass  10:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get the point of people questioning his worth as moderator. You guys know we have elections for this, right?  Are you suggesting impeachment or something?  If you don't like him just vote against him.  And remember that he was an original member of this website and, for all his flaws (his many, many flaws), embodies aspects of its mission.  Ask yourselves what RationalWiki would even be without him.  Seriously Ace and I have a lot of bad things to say about each other (he refuses to acknowledge A Forest as once of The Cure's best songs), but it's so weird to see you people wholesale rejecting his approach to the website, as well as the input of editors who've been here even longer than I have-- "Shut up, Brx." 07:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting impeachment, but what they are suggesting are anti-endorsements at best. I don't intend on demopping him. He's a bad, uncooperative moderator, but not abusive. And his past actions, which I'm not aware of, don't excuse his behavior right now. If I started just calling everyone "uneducated wet Bernie Bro. boobs" that have "twisted panties" and don't act like real grown ups, said one user is "cancer", just stopped editing mainspace for years, and unblocked DarkMaster simply for not vandalizing, that won't endear anyone to me even though I have a ton of contributions myself under my belt. If we're rejecting what you guys are arguing, it's not "weird", it's that people don't agree with you, attitudes likely have changed, and, I'll be frank, you have to reexamine your arguments rather than start questioning the sanity of others that disagree with you. 08:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not wholesale rejected Ace's views, Brxbrx, but I have repeatedly pointed out that his tactics are often counter-productive ad hominem attacks. Bongolian (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Impeachment? No. Of course not. But please don't pretend ace isn't being an over the top dick and utterly failing in his approach to express his point of view or get anyone to see it. Shabi  DOO  08:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We're not blocking him because we're afraid to debate him. We're blocking him because he's fucking annoying, and trying to debate him is like trying to debate an asshole Teddy Ruxpin. 22:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do we keep Rob around? He’s the same so why not Ken? Being fucking annoying and having the debate skills of a flustered Grouse isn’t reason for blocking people. AceModerator 01:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that Ken's recent edit on a Conservapedia screen cap file (reverted by GrammarCommie) counts as vandalism and he deserves a short block just for that. In my opinion, he is now a vandal. Spud (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Rob is an asshole too who provides no value to the wiki. 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Define value. Are you going to start wanting to put cavets into the comm standards about what constitutes value? You mean a 90/10 rule? Sounds familiar.... AceModerator 02:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, Rob has been multi-cooped and has survived kickbanning (barely) each time. Ken's recent sockpuppet is a different issue altogether. He/she/it is not even autopatrolled and does not deserve a coop, despite what others say. And they have repeatedly demonstrated troll and spam behavior here, serving no purpose except for making the mob react to the troll for the troll's amusement. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken is an asshole. Assholes have no value. Prove it to me he's not and we should keep him around. 03:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken's presence here serves no useful purpose and is detrimental to RationalWiki's mission, in my opinion.
 * Ken (he/she/it) has also said in his user page that he intended to open up and share his sockpuppet account's credentials with others. No one wants to put up with this kind of drama. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the "joke" he made in the link runs squarely against the new policy on discrimination against users on gender identity. I mean ex post facto so won't get banned just for that, but, well, he's an asshole. 03:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, here's my definition of value with regards to RW. Value is when contribution to missional activity is greater than disruptive/time-wasting activity. People who are intellectually dishonest (as is a lot of the activity on CP, e.g holding people to unequal standards, conspiracy theorizing) and start up arguments are time-wasters. Nobs is marginally better than Ken because some people here who actually do contribute value find it entertaining to taunt him periodically. Bongolian (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If, , and want to step up and patrol Ken's trolling and screeds when they appear, then, more power to them. If they want to disappear for a week or six weeks or six months or six years and then come in and complain that we are censoring valid inputs, they can fuck off. Coop me if you don't like it. I am acting in what I believe is in the best interests of the wiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * why do Ken’s comments need to be patrolled at all? Why is everyone a bunch of pearl clutching pansies who freak the fuck out about something so completely trivial? AceModerator 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are doing that right now, but the problem is that others have a lower tolerance for Ken and don't have the benefit of having used to feud with Conservapedia. AMassiveGay already said he felt genuinely uncomfortable when people tolerate Ken (which I feel too) and that troubles me. 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apropos of that, another difference is that Nobs actually enjoys being on RW, and knows how to stay away from crossing the line that will get him banhammered. Bongolian (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "They are doing that right now" Is there any evidence that they are actively patrolling Ken's spam? Not from my perspective. All they are doing is complaining about the drama, e.g. GrammarCommie's edit wars, etc. No evidence that any of them have actively done anything except for whine about our "censorship". Cosmikdebris (talk)
 * When do Ken's ramblings warrant patrolling? Patrolling is generally meant for mainspace edits.  Has that changed?  He can post to talk pages all he wants, so long as he doesn't edit other editors' posts-- "Shut up, Brx." 08:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally
I value free speech. I have a simple adage, "the best way to fight lies is with the truth." Which is to say, if somebody says something that offends you, instead of merely censoring them, you can debate them, expose the truth not only to your opponent but also to the general public. Indeed, this site is, as consequence of its mission, host to all sorts of unpleasant ideas- all discussed in their respective articles with appropriate refutations. Granted, victories of this sort don't really apply to Ken. He will never concede defeat. Debates with him don't have an audience of more than a handful of RationalWikians. There is no virtue in debating with him. He provides entertainment to a few users here and that's it. But I feel, personally, that simply blocking someone when you don't like what they have to say is contrary to the ideals of this website. I have maintained this position, with little nuance, throughout my entire tenure here. With the exception of bad faith users (trolls) and the most revolting world views (we once had a pedophile post his apologia here. His essay had an entire section titled "Damage to orifici" -sic-), I believe it is important for us to foster an environment welcoming of dissent and debate. Assaulting the integrity of this environment is only to be done with utmost care, lest we go down that dreaded "slippery slope." The best argument I heard for getting rid of Ken was from one of our LGBTQ users citing that he was offended by Ken's unreconstructed hatespeech. But let's be honest, this website is full of unreconstructed hatespeech. It's our mission to discuss such speech. And refute it. I don't see hosting him as particularly different than writing an article about the Westboro Baptist Church. Complaining about his posts on the WIGO:CP talk page is in essence complaining about the very nature of WIGO:CP. You go to Conservapedia, you'll find homophobia. You go to WIGO:CP, you'll find Conservapedia. Make the syllogism yourself. Anyways, I don't miss the days I had this much spare time and this whole post of mine is entirely too long. Tl; dr don't ban Ken just deal with it, it's not a big deal and we can't just go throwing the banhammer around willy-nilly-- "Shut up, Brx." 07:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Ken also isn't representative of the users that come here and complained about the wiki. Fighting lies with truth is a nice platitude but it's clear that some people aren't here to play nice. They're going to lie. They're going to manipulate your goodwill to their benefit. It's why people turn down debate offers, because they know the other party is dishonest and the platform offers them a degree of legitimacy. That being said, I'm not opposed to ignoring and collapsing. I've done this, I've restored previously-removed trollish talk page comments on the quality of an article. I've left comments on talk pages informing them of the nature of their edits. The difference with Ken and these people however, is that Ken is easily identifiable, recurring, and his intentions are clear; these people aren't, they're truly random, and so you have to assume good faith with them. While Ken isn't a big deal, banning him also isn't a big deal either. We're not winning extra brownie points for the sake of open debate for keeping him. We can come off as being overly accommodating like police that stand there for half an hour asking a sovcit for a driver's license too, so there's that to consider. 08:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Our mianpage says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.". I would say that blocking people we don't like, disagree with or find tedious goes against this statement of value.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that this wiki was practically founded to debate User:Conservative-- "Shut up, Brx." 08:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It also mentions constructive dialogue. — Oxyaena Harass  10:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not Ken disagreeing that's a problem, it's Ken also happens to waste time. Again keeping Ken around is a form of enabling. Ken should not be what people have in mind for those that have a differing viewpoint. Ken is closer to dishonest alt-right trolls. As for the wiki's founding, again, CP has faded to near irrelevancy aside from the occasional laughing at their stupidity. It may have started a way but it certainly didn't stay that way. 18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to interject
for a moment. What you're referring to as "Ken" is, in fact, Conservapedia/Ken or as I've Okay not doing the full pasta. But seriously. Let's do an evaluation here. Let's take a moment to analyze what's going on here. Let's try to approach this from a blanket eye perspective. So, in this imaginary realm, we have this new user, GuiocoPiano, whose main contributions so far have been that they're inserting Conservapedia links in mainspace and posts incoherent weird stuff on talkpages, repeatedly and a lot (essentially posting spam). This was, at least before Ken confirmed that Piano was his sock, the situation. This user had been blocked, first indefinetly, later short term for this behavior. This ties into our vote on the blocking policy to some extent, I'll acknowledge that. Then Ken confirms he is well... Ken. What happens next, I can only see as multiple people baiting out Ken to get a reaction out of him (just look at Piano's talkpage and WIGO CPs talkpage).

That's kinda fucking nasty. Of course, since it's Ken, the way he responds to this is... not ideal. So what is the steps forward here? Well, one start would be to tell users to stop baiting other users. That shouldn't be hard. Secondly, we also need to confront the fact that we're not about Conservapedia anymore. There's a reason that all our pages on CP have been moved to a dedicated namespace and have notices saying we don't focus on them anymore. The literal only mainspace content left about CP is the Assfly himself (because he's a nutcase beyond just CP) and a general article about CP (as well as weird references here and there about the Assfly). That also means that we shouldn't be giving CP admins "special treatment", just because they're from CP. This is also what makes the situation here different from nobs. Nobs is by all accounts still a cranky CP admin, yes, but he also at least tries to have constructive and open dialogue (even though it's well... nobs, the success of that is questionable). If I now look at Piano's userpage, what do I see from Piano? Well, mostly links to Kens incoherent essays about how RatWiki is dying, how we're awful because we're atheists, an homophobic comment that apparrently GC removed from other talkpages and a LANCB screed. Those are not the hallmarks of a constructive user. Those are the hallmarks of a troll whose main purpose is to rile up as many people as possible and to then walk away laughing as people get pissed.

So what to do about Ken. Well, frankly? I'd say block him. This isn't someone looking to enter constructive dialogue, this is someone who is looking to shit up the place and see what sticks.

Finally, I'll also add that I'm really getting kinda annoyed about the behavior from specificaly. Please just check our mission statement and the policy pages. We're not some Free Speech den where you can say whatever gets your rocks off to bait out trolls who stop by. We're a wiki project dedicated to documenting authoritarianism and cranks. Get with the times. CP is history and doesn't pertain to our main subject to the full extent it did in the past and we don't give CP users free passes based on the same type of behavior that gets regular users blocked. 14:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would point out again that just after our mission statements we say "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.". Now, you can argue about "constrictive" if you like but it is evident that we are asking people who disagree with us to engage.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I pointed out that Kens behavior is more closer to that of a troll than someone who disagrees with us (which, well, many people do and I do welcome discussion when folks disagree). I knew that it would be brought up, hence why I explained it. If Kens behavior were more disagreeing with us and not just smearing as much shit as he can on talkpages and seeing what gets to stick, then it wouldn't be an issue. 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Finely put, well said. As for Bob, nothing about Ken is constructive; everything he does is disruptive. — Oxyaena Harass  15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ken's contributions are not constructive, and that's why he's not welcome and block-worthy. Non-sysops have fewer rights here for a reason: they haven't (yet) demonstrated a minimal level of constructiveness/intellectual honesty. If anyone disagrees with blocking Ken, take it to the coop, and we can vote on permaban for his current account and sysoprevoke for his earlier account. Bongolian (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to argue. Again, Ken posted a "joke" denigrating nonbinary people. I told him to not do this joke again but anyway that's what he's like. Not here to debate. Not here for a conversation. Just here to spread his incoherent screeds, that's the only thing in his brain. What else do we expect? He's predictable as a word generator. Conservapedia is already there to perpetually host his crazy views, but RationalWiki shouldn't have to put up with this crap for the sake of free speech and debate. 18:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that a user who's been here less than a year is so comfortable telling me what RationalWiki is about. Never thought I'd play the veteran card but come on, I've seen enough "should we permaban so-and-so" debates to kill a small horse.  I've even been the subject of them.  And in my experience, RationalWiki has long been a platform for free speech.  Not a limitless platform, mind you, but Ken hasn't even come close to reaching our limit.  We once had to delete an essay from a rather eccentric user that was just a compilation of youtube videos featuring women's feet.  This is something that actually happened.  And no, he wasn't banned (at least not for that.  We just lectured him about how creepy it was).-- "Shut up, Brx." 05:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you're referring to as being here less than a year. LGM and I have both been here for 6 years, admittedly 3 years shorter than your 9. Bongolian (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brx is talking about me. As for, I made that comment because your comments on this page indicate that you're of the mindset "Ken should be debated with, it's the reason RW was founded to begin with", which rather blatantly is out of line with our mission statement/community guidelines. 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are these the newly invented community standards you're referring to? Or the ones that have existed and been interpreted at length long before you ever showed up here?-- "Shut up, Brx." 19:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RW isn't what it used to be, you dick. If it was literally anybody else Ken would've already been banned. — Oxyaena Harass  19:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're slinging insults now... Regardless, what are you implying, that we're favoring Ken? Personally I maintain that not banning him is consistent with my long-held position for tolerance on RationalWiki.  This is not Conservapedia.  We don't just ban people because we don't like them.-- "Shut up, Brx." 19:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hurling unnecessary insults around like that is completely uncalled for, Oxy. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refer to RationalWiki:Blocking_policy for the standards I'm referring to. Specifically, the section about Harassment and offensive comments, which is what Ken has been breaking, even before we went through the vote to change our blocking policy to be more specific on what behavior we consider breaking that guideline. (Something which was prompted due to Ken, but before he outed Piano as being his alt). Debate is cool, I like having different perspectives, I think everyone here does, since that's the only way to really achieve a rational POV. Thing is, Ken isn't here to debate us. Ken is here rather obviously and rather explicitly to advertise and soapbox his own incoherent essays and screeds about how much he hates us, gay people and atheists (which is what makes him different from nobs, who is open to debate and generally doesn't do this and relents when he crosses the line). Let me be clear: If it were any other user, the question of "should they be blocked for this stuff" wouldn't even have to be considered. You'd give them the boot before they could spread toxicity, it's just plain basic housekeeping. But for whatever reason you and Ace seem so insistent that Ken can/should be debated with, when he's made it rather explicitly clear that he's not here to do that. Frankly, you're only giving more credence to AMGs read on Ken being some sort of "old friend" who you like to keep around because he goes back to "the good old days", which mind you, we've made explicit mention that Conservapedia isn't our main goal anymore, by pulling the "I've been here longer than you, so silence" card. 20:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The community standards have always been more of a guideline than a fixed constitution. RationalWiki's founding was created in response to Conservapedia, and while some of our users don't care about that website the fact remains one of this website's core principles has always been an opposition to the petty bannings Conservapedia is famous for.  I am not intimidated by Ken's sad attempts at trolling.  Nor should anyone else be.  We're talking about a middle-aged man who spends the overwhelming majority of his sad and miserable life trying to impress people who think he's a clown.  We tolerate his presence on this wiki because whatever stunted malice motivates him is ultimately harmless, and this website's mission regularly has us dealing with much worse.  As far as my having been here longer than you, if you don't recognize how that gives me a much firmer grasp of the site's ideals and culture, then I guess I'll just have to wait until you're no longer a teenager and you'll be sure to agree with me eventually.-- "Shut up, Brx." 20:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As I indicated before, it would be best to continue this conversation in the Coop. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, but I noticed the snide jab with the phrase "newly invented community standards", implying they were simply made-up, pulled out of a hat, as opposed to being discussed at length and voted overwhelmingly support; changes you also happen to oppose but were ultimately in a small minority. 20:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, your patronizing attitude is noted, Brxbrx. 20:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Brx, when someone ostentatiously postures about how mature they are, it’s usually a good sign that they aren’t very mature. Please think about that the next time you try to belittle someone by calling them a teenager. It’s having the opposite effect from what you’re looking for. 20:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't really a comment on maturity so much as it was assuming the reason that The Crow doesn't understand why being a longtime member of a community being more knowledgeable about said community is the result of him not having much experience being a longtime member of anything. As for the effect I'm looking for... trust me, I'm getting what I want from all of this-- "Shut up, Brx." 21:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Crow understands this community really well. You come off as condescending despite your intentions. 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A relevant quote from the Community Standards
"Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner including civil, good-faith, constructive, detailed dialogue. Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder. That being said, preventing disorder is prioritized over following guidelines to the punctuation." — Oxyaena Harass  18:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

constructive dialogue is moot when it makes someones right to exist up for debate

 * once upon a time, rw was birthed by and in opposition to conservapedia. a microcosm of a wider political and cultural conflict of which their parts were of small piece of bigger movements, their impact negligible, taking time to become visible, if at all. but rw and c.pedia was a personal fight where the enemy knows your name. they read each others conversations about what you had been discussing. instantly seeing your effect on the enemy, acknowledging each other as each others nemesis. criticism can sting more when its personal, victories seem all the sweeter. not now though. cp doesn't care about us. they've moved on more or less. rw doesn't care about them either. we've moved on. a monkey flinging his own shit is all that remains at cp personally invested what we say or do. we are the only people who give him attention. the few people here still clinging to time when the personal beef made it all feel more vital, anonymous fucknuts or cataloguing the sins of politicians oblivious to efforts just feels futile in comparison.
 * the reappearance of old faces after long absences makes it almost like the good old day. that monkey still flinging shit over at cp? hes still dogshit but seems like an old friend now. he remembers you of course - so desperate for attention, insults and abuse at least means someone out there knows you exist. all that hate they've spewed over the years is like an old joke between friends. invited over for no other reason than convenience and nostalgia and hes made up. homophobic prejudice has become banter for these old chums.
 * some of us are not so nostalgic, and the gloating pride in the vastness of the hate filled content hes contributed and tailored to his audience (us, us back in the day) does not endear him to those us still struggle with wounds never to fully heal, the prejudice he promotes always pick at our scabs. sure, his brand of hate is imbecilic, it doesn't need the reason of sherlock or the wit oscar wilde for effect. it reminds and reinforces more stinging abuse from times past from people thought forgotten. brings back all self loathing, and shame once felt, if not still feel.
 * sure talk about ideals of constructive dialogue, or of what rationalwiki was founded, its principles. sure talk abut how fundamentally against all that the site was to be, allowing even those who we disagree can make a case. talk about all of that but ignore how none it applies to this piece of human dogshit. we don't offer constructive dialogue to unapologetic racists. they get symbolic abuse then blocked with no one wringing the hands with that hackneyed voltaire quote.
 * a couple of users personal feud has kept this cunt alive over years of cp becoming less important and less connected to us. we could ignore him while cp, if couldn't move on. now though, hes in recent changes, gloating over the same old lies hes been making for years, how his bigoted screeds are well referenced, hes not really that vested in them, we are all irrationally obsessed by them, obsessed with him. hes immune to constructive dialogue or criticism, attempts at debate are stillborn because arguing a point with shit flinging monkey just provides a target for the handful of shit.
 * imbecile though he is, his presence here makes me uncomfortable. not just because every idiotic, attention seeking post is reminder to any gay person growing up made to hate themselves, feeling hate directed at them, physically and verbally. hes a reminder of those people who haunt us with the shame and self loathing their prejudice instilled in us and will take our life times to over come.
 * it makes me uncomfortable that this human dogshit might post something that compels me to not just ignore as one should, but respond, your valued constructive dialogue defending my right to exist for me. a soul crushing endeavour of futility when dealing with someone who cares only that you pay attention him. it not a good feeling to know that those who hate you are beyond reason. every rebuttal is no more than another excuse to call you a fag.
 * and it makes me uncomfortable that he was not only welcomed with open arms by some, but actively defended with his detractors being more or less told to deal with it. this is what saddens me about all of this. homophobes pop up all the time. stirring up old wounds and the like, but manageable. this though isn't some random cunt out the wild the wild giving you a bit of temporary angst, this is somewhere that I have always felt had my back when came to homophobia. now I learn my right to exist is a point to debate not an undisputed given. mindless prejudice and mindless hate validated as another point of view.
 * why must I be made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of dogshit, why is my right to exist worth less than an attention seeking bigoted imbecile? while mock this hate filled dumbfuck, he gets the attention he desperately needs. rationalwiki is out witted by monkey flinging his shit about. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lack of capitalization is terrible, but good post. 21:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is among the various reasons I'm trying my hardest to boot this guy off the wiki. Having him around is being receptive to what he says at the expense of others. Again, that's enabling. I did say earlier one that I'd boot off Neo-Nazis, zero tolerance, because there are likely Jewish users and readers that feel threatened by the presence of these Nazis. Ken is nowhere near a Neo-Nazi but the effect he has on more vulnerable users is still there and still similar. 21:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a troll and someone who wants to engage in constructive dialogue. Ken is a troll. Plain and simple. 21:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I will point out my sister, several other users like Cosmikdebris and Duce, and I would've vandal binned, temp blocked and moved on the moment he started linking to Conservapedia and posting bad comments in bad faith, but this has been dragged out for over 10 fucking days under the guise of constructive dialogue while also relying on feeble rules lawyering that led to a community standards change. This has been a fucking drain, all for a stupid bigot who just so happened to be known among these users. 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing. I think you and I are of a similar vintage and, as a British kid in the 1970s and 1980s who liked books and didn't like sport, I probably got called a lot of the same names as you did. That kind of homophobia was tolerated too much 30 and 40 years ago. It shouldn't be tolerated now. You've also made me ask myself this. How can I consider myself to be an ally of the LGBTQ+ community but tolerate the continued presence here of somebody I know to be a terrible homophobe? After all, we're talking about somebody that I know has spent a large party of the 21st century writing "articles" and "essays" intended to demonize gays by linking them to everything negative he could think of. I mean, "Homosexuality and smoking" for fuck's sake!
 * And as well as being a homophobe, Ken also has a terrible attitude towards women. His fake LANCB screed mentions "sweet, submissive, lovely Christian ladies". I don't know about anybody else, but it's the "submissive" part that bothers me. I'd like to know what female editors think. Spud (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He's too much of an idiot for me to truly feel offended, but "submissive" is never an appropriate compliment for a woman. If you are a man, and a woman you love is being submissive, you ought to encourage her to make her own decisions and compromise yours, and trust her judgement. This sort of thing is why I'm feminist. I do wonder what kinds of images these hateful people conjure up of me (like maybe they think I'm an ugly obese lady with a gamer screen name) or even think I'm lying but it amuses me more than offends me. 02:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A real simple solution
This whole debacle shouldn't have been a mod issue in the first place - should have been a coop issue. Easy solution here is for a straight up and down vote - should Ken be banned. Yes/no/goat. Let the mob exercise its will as it is the ruling power behind RW. AceModerator 22:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coops are tiresome, we all know this. This shouldn't have been a controversial ban but it's been fought so bitterly to this end that now it is and to the exasperation to a lot of users here. 22:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then like I suggest - straight yes/no vote. Let the mob decide. AceModerator 23:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This should not have gone straight to the mods - we mods are a final solution and we set up the votes for situations like this. Yes Coop's are tiring but the will of the mob decides these things, not the mods. It should have been -> Evidence of users behaviour -> discussion -> vote -> whatever mob decides is what shall be. AceModerator 23:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We've pretty much got a Coop case in all but name here. I think we should have a proper one. As I've just said, I've come to the conclusion that I can't tolerate the continued presence here of someone I know to be a terrible homophobe. I also don't want to tolerate the continued presence of someone I know has only come here to try to bring down RationalWiki from the inside. I'd vote to permaban the fucker. Spud (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened the coop case. I don't know all the details, but anyone's free to comment or expand. Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this now?
As it’s in the coop. AceModerator 02:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Archive it? Sure. Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)