No.
They would be examples of the times when we disagree with the committee, sure. I'm not sure why you'd include Gorbachev on the list though perhaps you're more familiar with his legacy?
In the case of Arafat, it's not a "disagreement with the committee", they were just flat out wrong (or serving an agenda other than the stated mission). If it's called the "peace prize", I don't see any objective metric in which we can conclude that a guy who made a career out of rejecting peace deals, orchestrating terrorist attacks like hijackings and the Munich Olympics attack, and running the PLO, should have even been part of the conversation.
It's tantamount to the Nobel committee giving the physics prize to a flat-earther or a chemistry prize to someone who believes in homeopathy.
It's not just a "different strokes, to each their own" opinion-based thing at that point.
To your other question:
It's a mixed legacy that Gorbachev had.
While there were some very "western friendly" narratives about him. (citing the cooling of the arms race with the US, and the "easing of tensions" with western powers)... there's also the things like the deadly crackdowns in the Baltics, operating a surveillance state, and continuing throwing Russian bodies into the woodchipper that was the Soviet-Afghan war for 4 years.
Ultimately, he was a failing leader who was presiding over a crumbling empire, and threw in some last minute, half-hearted "reforms" to save some face on the world's stage before the final bell rang.
If you recall, the Soviet Union collapsed (and not intentionally or voluntarily) not long after he was given that award.
Pray, BEFORE she was given teh award, what exactly did she do that was so awful?
Before, nothing, but that was my point... if someone is affiliated with revolutionary movements, there's a much higher likelihood that some of that erratic behavior will appear later (especially once they're in a position of power)
She'd be somewhat in the same category of Abiy Ahmed in that regard.
If Castro didn't get teh award, I'm not sure why he'd be brought up.
That was just an example that highlights that if a person has that "radical revolutionary spirit", even if they haven't done anything bad "yet", if they're on a trajectory that's pointed at becoming a head of state or some other powerful position, the risk of erratic or oppressive behavior is higher than that of a "normie"
Radical revolutionary types are nothing if not rabidly idealistic, and that level of idealism + power seems to always trend toward some heavy-handed measures aimed at squashing opposing ideologies. At least that's been the pattern up until now.
Careful...that's kind of...you know....United States of America.
Where I'd draw a slight distinction is between a revolution to break free from another country, vs. a revolution to try to take over your own country.
"I want to build my own thing, and just want you to stay out of the way when I do it" vs. "I want to forcibly take over this thing that you built, but use it for my own purposes" typically comes from two different kinds of mentalities.
Sort of a:
"I want to start my own store so I don't have to deal with the likes of Walmart, I'll fight them harshly if they try to use their power/influence to prevent me from doing so"
vs.
"Me and a bunch of my friends are going to violently storm the local Walmart, change the name, take it over, and use their existing building, inventory, employees, cash registers, etc... to run a store the way we see fit"
But I take your point. There were some radical revolutionaries who formed America... and they certainly had the propensity for some impulsive, irrational (and sometimes violent) endeavors. A group thinking a piece of land is theirs by divine providence is the same kind of group that comes up with "gems" like the Scalp Acts.
