If this is true, then my guess of who this is about was entirely wrong, and I’m baffled about this decision.
I don’t think anyone disputes that. The disagreement is about the list of “violations”, which don’t match my recollection of the behavior of the member mentioned in the above blog post. For example, I might have missed something (I didn’t read all the messages in that thread), but I don’t remember them “making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment” (which, indeed, would be appalling).
A special mention is deserved for “discussing bans or removals of community members […] may be seen [by whom?] as publishing private information without permission”. It’s entirely unspecific, and implies that any discussion of such bans or removals can be reason for banning someone else.