QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 30th May 2008, 12:06pm)
What is important is something called "principle" and if one presses a principle as hard as one can, that principle might just stick, and inform future processes in a positive way.
By addressing the core problems, as Moulton and Wordbomb have done, their actions are far more important than some superficial need to right some personal wrong.
I believe in principle up to a point. I requested the unblock of Twister Twist, a user caught up in a bad checkuser result who never violated any policy, even though Twister Twist had not edited in more than a year. I felt that, regardless of whether Twister Twist even remembers that she used that account on Wikipedia, it violates my principles to allow an unjust block to stand, so I requested an unblock on behalf of that account, and Golbez granted it.
I don't think Moulton's insistence on principle falls in the same category. Moulton got into a dispute with Wikipedia administrators. I'm not understanding exactly what happened, but the dispute escalated to an RFC, and from the RFC someone banned him, even though normally there are intermediate steps between an RFC and a ban. If Moulton had been a little more circumspect, the dispute could have been resolved without starting an RFC. (If one formula of "resolved" was "let Wikipedia say what it wants about my colleague, I quit," consider that the current situation for Moulton is not any better than that outcome would have been.) So to me, claiming that Moulton should be unbanned on "principle" is emphasizing technical details while ignoring common sense. If I felt strongly about this case, I would add my voice to those on-wiki calling for his reinstatement. Heck, if I really cared, I could meet him in person because I live in the same metropolitan area as he does. I'm not going to go out of my way to help someone who refuses to help himself. Principle, however you wish to define it, includes being reasonably responsive to other people who want to help you. Moulton has failed on that principle.
Ironically, by not trying to help himself, Moulton is being more selfish than if he just accepted reinstatement with no questions asked. By trying to correct the system in a massive blaze of drama instead of working within the system, Moulton is substantively disrupting the system without actually accomplishing anything for himself or for Wikipedia. I don't think you realize this, but Poetlister's unban actually did produce a slight change in the way the Arbitration Committee thinks about bans. FT2 basically admitted that, in the future, the Committee needs to be more open with the community about presenting its evidence in such cases, and he cited the disclosure about Archtransit as an example of such openness. If Moulton had allowed himself to be reinstated, it would have embarrassed some of the editors who were in dispute with him (which is actually happening anyway for other reasons) and it would have led people to think: "Hey, you know, maybe we really did mess up on this one." Instead all people can think about is: "Will Moulton shut up already?"