I do not find any of these quotes to be convincing evidence that there was sufficient grounds for banning Mike Hearn. Considering that these are also all quotes of other people attacking Mike Hearn. It would have been more convincing if you quoted Mike Hearn himself saying something that you think should have been justification for banning him. It does matter what we think of the developers however or even what their beliefs are, it should not be a popularity contest, what matters is what is in the code.
You completely missed the point. There can be no progress on the code when "every pull [Hearn] touches turns into a cesspool." Bitcoin is a collaborative project. If he refuses to collaborate with the other devs and continues to try to force unpopular opinions in the face of significant criticism, collaboration is impossible. Hence why he forked the code.
Go ahead and continue to ignore other developers' opinions in favor of your own unbacked opinions. But your ignorance of the context of the mailing lists is not compelling.
None of that means the core devs are right to forestall the block increase, nor does it make their apparent conflict of interest with blockstream any less troubling. Those very things make any silencing of Hearn suspicious.