I believe the CoC massively dropped the ball on two of these enforcement decisions and should further explain the rationale behind them. My fear is that they let the noise between antagonists cloud what were clear facts to be addressed, and they flinched. From the communications thread: "A member of our council said something important in relation to these first three decisions, '(The CoCC is) setting a precedent for what the CoCC is. How we can be fast with things that are clearly violations of the rules, and careful with breaches in the social fabric? How also instead of a punitive council, we are restoring optimism from its own contributors.'" This is silly. Of course the point of the CoC council is to be punitive when it's warranted. I'm not sure how restoring optimism enters into that part. Someone breaks the rules, do something about it, full stop.
I agree with Jack