On 1/25/2015 6:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies. I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
The problem being that ArbCom is so political that most members see editors they dislike/disagree with on issues/content as disruptive even if their disruption is minor compared to that of the editors they feel more sympatico with. And of course if the "community" (i.e., gangs of editors who are allies) decide to target someone it's just easier politically to sanction those persons than not. And if they have a lot of supporters it is safer NOT to sanction them.
This issue was very clear in GGTF arbitration where a few people were targeted by most posters, over and over for the same issues, at least til the end when an Arbitrator added a couple more needing sanctions. It's less clear in Gamergate because there are more participants being targeted by many more participants on many different issues.
CM