RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive101

Permabanning of Ken DeMyer
It has been proposed on RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation that the user now know as User:GiuocoPiano but who was previously a Sysop as User:Newton until he lost his password. For those who don't know, DeMyer is the big #2 on Conservapedia (Conservapedia:Conservative). The accusations against him are manifold: most recently, polluting RW mainspace with undesirable links to CP. Other accusations include bigotry, intellectual dishonesty and conspiracy mongering. At the moment, I'm not sure if these latter transgressions happened on RW or just on CP. Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have to admit that my feelings are coloured by what I know he has done away from this wiki. In a similar way to how I permabanned someone whose user page here had a link to his Gab account where he expressed extremely vile anti-Semitic views, my conscience will not allow me to tolerate the continued presence here of someone I know has spent more than a decade churning out "essays" and "articles" intended to encourage and perpetuate homophobia. Spud (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other accusations include bigotry, intellectual dishonesty and conspiracy mongering. When you say it like that, you make it sound like we're banning him for opposing RationalWiki's world view- "Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken is a small child seeking attention. His insecurity will cause him to react with bravado no matter which option we choose. So... There's no real bad option here. I personally am fine with him as long as he behaves according to the community guidlines, as well as what I'd like to call "Basic behavioral standards for anyone age 8 and up." That means no ad hom attacks, no spamming links to his screeds, staying on topic in a discussion and not veering off into diatribes about unrelated topics, etc etc etc... 03:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If he didn't do those things on RW, it's not really an issue as far as I'm concerned (unless it's persistent out-linking to relevant pages on CP). Intellectual dishonesty is contrary to civility and good-faith editing, which are codified on RationalWiki:Community Standards. Bongolian (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He isn't the only intellectually dishonest person we have/had on RW. And then there's Rob os course. We shouldn't be banning on off-site behaviour though. AceModerator 04:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rob behaves himself, and when he's engaged he mostly stays on topic. I'd rather have him around than Ken. 04:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are possibly banning Ken in part for  bigotry, intellectual dishonesty and conspiracy mongering which is Rob's MO. AceModerator 04:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of Order Is it proper to out somebody in bringing a Coop case? The accusations appear to be against a person who may or may not be whom Bongolian suggests, and not based upon any violations of RW Community Standards that are in line with a margin of error afforded any newbie. These accusations are an appeal to prejudice against an alleged living person, and not the conduct of a novice RW editor. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence, please
I primarily started this coop case to get the discussion out of the Moderator noticeboard, not because I had formed an strong opinion. For the record, can those of you who know of the offensive/contrary to Community Standards postings please give links here. I only saw one link-out in mainspace. Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Vandalized a screencap related to Conservapedia.
 * Promotion of homophobia which is outlined in our current blocking policy that we do not tolerate discriminatory comments against sexual orientation. It has been demonstrated to cause emotional harm from one user (who also posted earlier about his concerns who was mostly ignored, passed on, and remained to be ignored, passed on, and downplayed) which should be enough for a permaban. Seriously, read that long post in the link.
 * Made a joke that also goes against Community Standards, discriminating against gender identity. Also made that joke in the userpage. If there were ANY other users doing this, you bet they'd at least earn a vandal bin.
 * Part of a fake LANCB screed also mentioned "submissive" Christian ladies, which rubs me, as a woman, the wrong way.
 * It's very clear he's here to provoke, berate, taunt, etc. otherwise seek attention and is using our platform as a means to spread his viewpoints    . This is also in context of eagerly punching down minority groups, not simple disagreement. This also violates a Community Guideine: "Constantly being disruptive despite being told to stop or having comments collapsed, especially after being short-term banned, can be ground for longer bans, typically week-months long." Frankly, the concern that banning him is just an ideological ban is overblown, and I do not believe homophobia or atheophobia are considered a valid ideological difference.  08:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from maybe his comments on homosexuality everything else is really, really tame. Rob engages in extremely similar ways. AceModerator|
 * "Rob does it too" is not a valid excuse and, in fact, reflects very poorly on Rob. 09:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And calling that "joke" on gender identity "tame". No it is not. 09:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve said my piece. AceModerator 09:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that most of the homosexuality post simply lists various bigoted attitudes held by others (e.g. that many countries still criminalise it and that various fundies also ban it), I don’t see that as meriting a permaban. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He's using that to support his homophobic views, a means to gloat that it's criminalized. It's very clear he's a bad-faith homophobe, too. If this were any other user, there is a smidge of benefit of doubt, but this is Ken. And I do not believe we should tolerate homophobes in this wiki. 10:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not how I read the post at all. Ken expressed a rather vague personal disapproval and highlighted how many others share these views, up to and including outright penalisation/criminalisation. The difference from other bans over homophobia, antisemitism etc., which usually contain outright slurs, targets specific editors, or straight up condemnations of the target group(s), seems pretty clear cut to me. For instance, compare and contrast mikemikev. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I note here that both Ace ("Rob engages in extremely similar ways") and DeMyer ("Second, homosexuality is still illegal in 35% of UN member states and fewer than 30 countries recognize same-sex marriage.") used a fallacious form of the Argumentum ad populum argument. Refusal to acknowledge this when point out in an argument is indicative of intellectual dishonesty, which is contrary to Community Standards (civility). Bongolian (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel I need to clarify my position or at least the level hurt I have endured as I see it something a focus. I am not personally hurting from whats been going. I say I am uncomfortable about the situation, about the response I have had from some over an initial complaint, about the defence of sealioning bigoted dogshit, and the lazy dishonesty of 'we should debate'.

I would like to say, that over the years this prick has been debated, such as is possible, almost constantly. take a quick tour of the archives for wigo cp. there is no shortage of shout outs and responses to the dogshit on cp, with those few here able to face the futility it. atheism has been having a bad year since forever, homosexual agendas is always having set backs. they say uh hu, we say nu hu. or years it seems. that's the debate. news stories are discussed about dogshit has linked an essay of theirs, atheism and obesity, homosexuality and paedophilia. you know the drill. 'essays' are penned making specific reference to a reply from someone here. then deleted once we have seen particularly egregious statements - the most recent that jumps out (hat tip to mercian) 'pro sodomite sluts and whores' in reference to the victims of the bombing of a Ariana grande concert. in the past 'set backs for the homosexual agenda' include death penalties for gays, stonings, life sentences, related news stories linked with essays associated standard tropes of homosexuality and disease, perversions, sadistic violence, poor mental health, all the usual stuff. its 'off site' activity sure but is part of a dialogue with this site. pointless sure but in that format, the dogshit is at arms length.

this is where it discomforts me, where all that hatred being discussed on wigo cp pretty much constantly is handwaived away for the convenience of making the same old jokes made years ago in the good old days. its a debate going on for years, never having progressed to actual debate, with them onsite proper its still gone nowhere. he didn't say any specific gay slurs though, and most of the evidence is offsite, though not really. a noted proponent of all kinds of hate, not just homophobia, been a part and parcel of them for years, discussed, debated even, with dishonesty and prejudice for years, a noted piece of dogshit. invited over like an old pal. perhaps homophobic content is just idiotic nonsense if its never been a factor in your life. comically inept bile does sting though when its repackaged hate you've heard a million times before, no not heard, felt in ones bones.

I'm not sitting in tears, sobbing over how beastly it all is btw. just tired. its all so wearying. never quite sure which bit of past trauma led me to where I find myself, over which events I seem to obsess over, how they made feel then, or now, or if its really significant. its not this prick that saddens me. its being told its no big deal, theres been worse offenders, toughen up, snow flake. thanks for that. hope getting to say 'macheesmo' again really scratched an itch. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing that, AMassiveGay. Relevant to what you have said, "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." That does not mean that we welcome bigots. That also does not mean that we welcome the demonstrably, chronically intellectually dishonest, such as DeMeyr. Intellectual dishonesty is contrary to constructive dialogue. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see "hurting" not as literally "crying" over it but you described what you're seeing as "picking at a scab" or feeling "sting in the bones" or "every response you make and bait the troll with is an excuse for them to continue calling someone a 'fag'" which I've interpreted as descriptions of being hurt. There are several degrees of hurt, after all. Of course you've built a skin of deflection to protect yourself from the personal verbal abuse, but verbal abuse always somehow finds a way through, sneaking in, jabbing your soul. On top of this, you are being told to "get over it", and this is a sinking feeling, even if you're not the target. You do know how to protect yourself, that's why you're not crying, so the advice is wrong, but it communicates that what you're feeling is "just hurt feelings", a form of invalidation you've already experienced from hateful people, but this time from people you thought you could trust. 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * a lot of my posts are more an effort to order my own thoughts, where I am not certain of feelings that I am far from certain I have presented accurately. I am never sure I am even coherent most of the time. thanks all for the kind concern shown. it really is appreciated. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's normal to not be 100% sure how you're feeling so sometimes you don't believe you're communicating something properly. Feelings and emotions are complicated, not an easy thing to process, especially if you have experienced thoughtful therapy sessions. If you believe my thoughts on your feelings make sense, this means you've communicated your thoughts effectively, so just keep that in mind. 22:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, ban him

 * 1) — Oxyaena  Harass  04:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 05:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 05:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 06:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Spud (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Trolls can't be reformed, they're not open to it. Ken is a troll.  10:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I was going to vote no but seeing how some fellow users casually dismiss his homophobia as beyond just something not worthy of a ban (and possibly it isn't worth a ban) but even simply a non-problem...well...that's actually a lot more hurtfull than Ken's flippant gay-bashing. I'll change my vote to no if someone can propose a way to deal with shitting on people's rights to exist with equality without resorting to a ban. Dealing with racism/sexism/homophobia is not tantamount to creating a safe-space. It's dealing with a toxic problem.  Shabi  DOO  15:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Somewhat moot (he claimed to have LANCBed already), a waste of time (not a Sysop, at least not demonstrably), a troll. Bongolian (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, mateys! 16:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) obviously I wont miss this prick. free speech will survive another terrible year for atheism. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I've watched the discussion unfold over the last couple of day and, after some consideration, I've opted to throw my lot in with the 'ban' side. It will no doubt be seen as hypocritical since I'm often an advocate for not banning (having defended Nobs, WWW, UT and others in the past). I was swayed partly by what AMG posted, and partly due to my belief that if Ken remains unbanned there will keep being drama here and at the mod noticeboard. --RWRW (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Ban. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Obvious troll. Nobody on Conservapedia gets a pass here for being on Conservapedia. this is 2020 EK (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) From what i've seen of all the shit they've done and with the community guidelines, ban. nya ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls]  talk  21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Leave him be

 * 1) He goes away for a while when he loses too much. Particularly here.  Once he realizes he has no control over the narrative and people are free to refute his nonsense, he'll run back to CP where his critics get blocked on sight- "Shut up, Brx." 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah I agree. He'll turn tail because he can't control the ground rules. Like he did on aSK - where he is suddenly "busy" for 90 days. AceModerator 05:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) We can make a better editor out of him and teach him how to engage in rational discussion. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 05:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not learned this yourself, so what you're actually saying is that you think you can teach him how to avoid crossing the line of banhammer. This is not credible in the least, given DeMyer's robotic editing style (Fun:Ken article generator, Template:Ken debate, Fun:Ken Debate Challenge Generator, Fun:Ken Quote Generator). Bongolian (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Until someone makes a clear list in the above ”Evidence, please” section, I don’t see the basis for a permanent ban (as opposed to more limited bans for link spamming). As a general rule, off-site behaviour doesn’t matter, unless it’s being dragged back into RW. Excessive links to CP is something of a borderline case, but permabanning on that basis seems a bit excessive to me. The initial motion is to permaban GiuocoPiano looks more like a ban for, well, for being Ken on CP. A ban on being an abrasive douche or whatever some might consider intellectual dishonesty doesn’t set a comforting precedent and risks setting a hypocritical double standard based on ideology. So, please, present the examples of transgressions against the RWA community guidelines, if you think there’s a strong argument for a permaban. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I provided some diffs here but the ones where AMassiveGay wrote a big post telling us how hurt he feels and how Ken's behavior is just opening old wounds makes me moved enough to want to ban Ken. 09:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless such hurt feelings result from direct persecution of AMassiveGay, I don’t see why we should ban on that basis. Again, think of the precedence. What do you do when someone’s feelings get hurt by various other kinds of general posts? Should we permaban for hurting the feelings of straight white dudes, when someone rants on about how they are generally terrible oppressors? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First, people shouldn't be ranting about straight white men being the oppressors, this will run against discrimination standards and they should be told to stop. Misandry shouldn't be tolerated either. Second, the reason I've taken AMassiveGay's feelings seriously is that homophobia has demonstrated harmful, real-life consequences and cultivated a sense of self-hatred and other harmful psychological effects that I believe should be considered. This also applies to general discrimination against other minority groups (we already ban overt anti-semites and racists; however we do debate some ideas by users that we consider racist, I will grant you that), hence why most communities have clear rules on dealing with discrimination and bigotry. I do not feel I have to explain the difference between homophobia's effects compared to discrimination on being white and I hope you understand this. 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we adopt such a wide interpretation of homophobia as to include the vague, personal disapproval as in the cited post, along with its factual statements about the lack of tolerance of homosexuality in various countries and (sub)cultures, with the argument that this could hurt someone’s feelings and lead to negative psychological effects, I think we’ve left the area of reasonable protection and entered into the dubious territory of safe spaces and trigger warnings. I’m sorry that the examples provided by Ken have stirred up bad memories for AMassiveGay, but that does not in and of itself merit a permaban and setting a highly problematic precedent of banning people on the basis of how something they write might affect some other contributor’s feelings. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fucking bullshit scepticwombat. What the fuck are you doing comparing the slandering of marginalized people to casual flippant comments about privelaged straight white males. It's not the same thing. What's wrong with you? You're holding homophobia to a lesser standard than racism. If ken said he didn't approve of black people and that they should have lesser rights he'd be permabanned so fast. But you seem to care less about homophobia...and for no logical reason. I was with you up to this point but what the fuck with this straight-white-male false equivalency and your ambivalence to homophobia? It's 2020 for fucks sake. Shabi  DOO  12:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I have mixed feeling on your last post. On the one hand, I've actually seen content with "trigger warnings", and they're basically just content warnings. On the other hand, due to the nature of the topics we cover, I don't believe the site should be considered a "safe space", at least not in mainspace. It should however, remain welcoming to others in the "backstage" area of the wiki. Finally, I think it's a bad idea to only enforce the rules on overt bigotry. While I do not know Ken's intentions in this instance, I do know that TERFs have responded to Social media posts by gloatingly citing trans suicide statistics, which is similar to the post in question. 13:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Scream!! (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Literally not one single thing he's accused of violates standards. I don't like the things he says, but he's not remotely as toxic a presence as several of your busiest editors and you make them sysops and techs, so this coop seems to have things back to front. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check the Harassment and offensive comments section of the blocking policy. 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Far less annoying than nobs. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ikanreed, seriously? — Oxyaena Harass  16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They're both conservapedia sysops with weird axes to grind, and frankly nobs is more persistent. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Hello!-Flandres (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) FFS. I find it hard to believe anyone can be genuinely offended, let alone harmed, by the presence of someone so comically bad at, well, every single fucking thing he's ever turned his hand to. Ken should, in fact, be displayed to the widest possible audience, because there are precious few who can do his cause as much harm as he can simply by talking. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Goat
Just out of curiosity, if no one else gives a crap is one vote against enough for a ban?Ariel31459 (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say no. If no one else gives a crap then the status quo should be maintained. AceModerator 04:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not reviewed his every edit. Yes, his user page is filled with links to curious rants on Conservapedia.  (Quære: if it takes Jesus' blood to protect you from homosexuality, how does this affect Orthodox Jews?)  What I'm not seeing here is clear and convincing evidence that he has violated either formal or unwritten rules here, rather than merely holding odd and queasy opinions that are out of step with the site's general tendency, and I don't think that is enough.  My own political opinions are not so holy that I can't bear to hear them contradicted. That seems to be the attitude of a dwindling minority.  But I don't think that "disagrees with us" or "is a religious homophobe" are enough. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm not seeing here is clear and convincing evidence that he has violated either formal or unwritten rules here because he hasn't. AceModerator 05:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Making homophobic comments IS considered now a standards violation, as it falls under discrimination against sexual orientation. This isn't getting started on bigotry against atheists too. 05:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, if a wiki dedicated to criticizing and debunking this sort of thing is going to start having thin skin- "Shut up, Brx." 05:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Grow a thicker skin"? Tell that to AMassiveGay, he'll appreciate it. 08:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Brx meant thicker skin in relation to tolerating idiots. But I could be wrong. AceModerator 08:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More or less. This wiki is by its nature already neck-deep in bigotry.  And it was founded in opposition to Conservapedia, in no small part in protest of Conservapedia's authoritarian approach to dissent- "Shut up, Brx." 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM: What is homophobia? Discrimination against a person with an irrational fear? You want to criminalize mental disorders and homelessness, too? nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 05:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hydrophobic atoms are terrified of water. 05:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Damnit banhammer them! Just cause it happens in nature is no cause to tolerate such fear and hate! nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 05:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I hate water and only drink wine- "Shut up, Brx." 05:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You should drink more water. That goes for everyone. 06:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I hear water saturates and increases potency of solutions. Good stuff. 08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this exchange right here is part of issue. dialogue and debate are great and all, but how many times must it said homophobia not the same as homo fear? how often must semantic pedantry obfuscate the meat of a debate that by simply engaging with, validates hate? the joke wears thin and becomes harder and harder to discern the malicious from the innocent, if its all just me or that this all being seen as silly nonsense by folk whose own histories of harassment, and bans, and disruptive behaviour might skew their own views of acceptability, or that a 'veteran' user status holds less weight when it involves years absent from engagement with the siteAMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rob trying to deflect to me wanting to criminalize mental disorders and homelessness is appalling. I shouldn't have played along. The reply he made to my concern is so disgusting and nonsensical I should've removed it rather than leave it be. 21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My original intent was to mock Rob for woefully misunderstanding what "phobic" actually means. It means general aversion. Guess what a fear is? It's an aversion. First graders can know the difference for fuck's sake. 21:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the original point is that it's a talking point done to death. There's no need to entertain that. 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck do we keep Rob around again? 21:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's tangential to this coop. They are two different people, who have rather different editing styles and histories even though they are ideologically bound by CP. Bongolian (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get paid enough to be making slippery slope arguments- "Shut up, Brx." 21:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone provide a few links of Ken's recent antics here on the site. It would help to see such cases as I don't pay attention to every area of the sites activities. Shabi DOO  08:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's worth looking at his overall contributions but I selected some that I found more egregious. His entire history is basically trolling and gloating, there's zero value in retaining him. 09:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, you need to stop ascribing “value” to users. We don’t have a measure of value. AceModerator 09:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have provided me exactly zero reason how keeping him is a benefit to the wiki, beyond arguing semantics, appealing to how the wiki used to be, rules-lawyering, and personal attacks. I already have my supporting evidence to why Ken is harmful i.e. "no value" as well as other users, including one that took the time writing a big post going into detail about being harmed by Ken, and your single, only defense is "ignore him" and appeals to "grow a thicker skin". That reflects poorly on you and Brx to not even consider that viewpoint. 09:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM - we don’t ascribe “value” to users. Nor do we ban people for not being a benefit to the wiki. It’s really simple - I don’t need to explain why he is a benefit, it’s not relevant because we don’t ascribe value. What metrics are you using? AceModerator 09:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do ban users based on community upkeep, per Community Standards. We've cooped and banned, again, DarkMaster, UnlicensedThinker, Logicnsuch, Elvis is King, and we've banned a Zeitgeist spammer who relentlessly goes on talk pages. You do have to explain why he is a benefit as it is demonstrated he is harmful. He does not promote constructive dialogue. He wastes time through trolling and having people respond to him or vet his edits. He harms people through bigotry. Keeping him around therefore is an overall detriment to this community. 09:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we already have 5 people who don’t believe he is an overall detriment to the community - none of whom have to explain to your satisfaction why they think so. AceModerator 09:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have six people who believe he is. — Oxyaena Harass  14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When a user repeatedly violates Community Standards and ignores warnings, they are essentially saying they do not want to be part of a project. They wind up banning themselves. That has not happened here in the case of an editor alleged to be the outed person in this case. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 00:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What if you protect the CP talk page for a while. Mightn't the trolls just lose interest?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not very comfortable protecting talk pages. 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But you're comfortable banning people???- "Shut up, Brx." 20:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We ban trolls all the time?!? 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference: long-term locking of pages is like a preemptive topic ban, which potentially shuts down dissenting but rational views. That is why it is arguably worse than banning an individual for specific behavior. As I have said many times, banned individuals can always come back with a new identity and an improved behavior if they so desire. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the event that Ken doesn't get banned, locking the WIGO CP talk page to new users would be a terrible idea. If he doesn't get banned, Ken will at least concentrate most of his edits on the WIGO CP talk page. If that page is closed to him, Ken will instead spam his screeds all over talk pages, file pages and probably even articles all over the wiki. Not a solution at all. Spud (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So. I've gone through the discussions on this page and the Mod page and I'd like to comment on a few things. Firstly, there's this attitude among the older editors that their opinions have more weight than those of newer editors. This is easily remedied. They don't. Nextly, it seems like the case for keeping Ken around revolves around whether he violated the Community Standards.

Now, those who propose keeping him seem to think that debating Ken is the way to go, to which I reply, "to what end?" (I should add that I am a firm believer in debate having an end point, and actual goal that is either achieved or failed. I am not a proponent of the "Free marketplace of ideas" concept, since I've seen some really nasty shit platformed, dishonestly, under that pretense.) If you can give me an example of Ken ever having changed his views due to debate, I'll consider voting yes. But it seems to me, from both my personal interactions with him and reading the archives, that he has zero interest in debate as a means to understanding the world, only as a tool to soapbox his own views. Again, at that point there isn't really any discussion that could be had with any reasonable end state. Fact checking cannot occur, good faith arguments cannot occur, the very premise (in the case of LGBT+ rights) is set out in such a way that engaging in debate gives undue weight to one side. So, it seems that the idea of debating Ken is out of the question.

Now, what about the Standards? Well, from what I can tell he's violated those. Now, again the Old Guard seem to believe that the recent updates are "illegitimate", even though their concerns were heeded at the time. A vote was held, said vote was extended so that as many as possible could have their say. Discussions were held. Conclusions were reached. Even before those revisions he would have violated the Standards.

Now, we come to whether or not this ban is ideological. To which I reply, was banning Tisane ideological? Did he explicitly call for harm? (I can't look, since his essay has not only been deleted, but purged from the site.) Should we tolerate the views of Pedophiles in the name of dissenting opinions? If not, then I'd argue your positions are sandcastles built upon clouds. Because literally every argument you've made thus far I can turn around and use in defense of Tisane. So, ask yourselves this, why exactly do you want to keep Ken around? Because so far, none of the current reasoning adds up if we inspect it closely. 21:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sour grapes for your blocking at CP, but very well stated. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 00:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To those who prefer to maintain an open sort of intellectual environment this is the fate of congregationalists everywhere: the congregation changes. Ariel31459Careful with the soap Roger!''
 * How is keeping Ken around intellectually productive? What arguments are there for keeping Ken around that hold up to scrutiny? 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't and there aren't any, as far as I can tell. He may well be a pernicious influence here. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for clarifying. 22:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing the case
I propose closing this case. No one has voted in 4 days and debate has ceased. The result is 14 to 10 for permabanning Ken Demeyr. Bongolian (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So that means enacting the permaban? 08:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to closing the case. I was planning on proposing the same thing tomorrow, when it would have been 5 days since anybody posted here. And yes, at the moment, it's 14 votes for permaban and 10 votes for don't. So that would mean that Ken gets permabanned by a narrow margin. Spud (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Id' say to go ahead then, and don't forget the self-admitted sock on the talkpage for this coop. 15:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and permabanned User:GiuocoPiano and User:Margon282. I have de-sysoped and permabanned User:Newton. Spud (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)