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
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.