I’ll dryly note that as soon as I started being specific again, you started equivocating again. You’re not worth the time of arguing with.
For the audience, as I no longer have sufficient respect for my opponent to address him directly:
If ChristianKI’s goal is to prevent Eugine Nier from posting/commenting, this solution fails immediately for reasons that are transparent: Eugine can simply create another account.
Assuming my respected opponent has half a brain cell to him, that motive is off the table as an explanation. He’s stated he sees no value in having an anonymous account, and moreover he called for the deletion of the last one; it’s clear his true motive has nothing to do with Eugine Nier. He asserts his own views and values as being objectively true (“The question of what’s harmful is a factual one.”), equivocates when challenged, is disingenuous about his motives, and promotes sabotage of what the community as a whole regards a useful institution.
Given his attitude towards the use of administrative function to “improve the community” without regard for long-term consequences or precedent, personally I think it would be poetically appropriate to ban him, but I fear that I do, in fact, care about long-term consequences and precedent, so cannot actually advocate that course of action.
So I suggest anybody so inclined to, instead, laugh quietly to themselves over this self-important blowhard. Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my stating that, particularly in that context, so I encourage everybody to laugh at me, as well, because this entire post, and the response to it, is eminently farcical, and deserves to be laughed at.