"::::::::::::: It was neither unprecedented nor particularly surprising; there is a reflex – not entirely unwarranted – to re-evaluate whether an editor's continued participation is beneficial on the whole when they have returned in front of the committee for the umpteenth time over the same issue.  Would I have voted to ban him?  I don't know.  I haven't evaluated the situation, nor was it my job to do so.  I do think that some of the comments from the sitting arbs were catastrophically asinine (on both sides of the discussion) and I will certainly vote accordingly come next elections.Do I believe that this is indicative of a fundamental problem of repression or political payback?  I know it isn't.  I know for a fact that the poor sods currently sitting on the committee are doing the best they can to help the project, to the limits of their ability.  Mostly it works out on average, sometimes it blows up.  I certainly will be voting against some of the current arbitrators (not just over that incident), but I see no justification for heaping scorn on the group, the institution, or even those individuals whose judgement I find most lacking.  I was in that seat.  I know it's a fucking hard job.  I know that even those I think should not be within 10' of the committee have willingly taken a shit responsibility for trying to do the Right Thing even if it means being spat upon and crapped all over as your sole reward, and they deserve respect if only for that.  Disagree with them.  Vehemently if you feel the need for it.  Campaign, or run for a seat yourself.  But do yourself and everybody else a service and stop imagining vast conspiracies to ""get"" some editors, or to take over, or whatever else is the reproach du jour.  —    
 "