It is true that WMF should have communicated the reasons for the ban better and worked more closely with the community. However, I do not understand the extreme

It is true that WMF should have communicated the reasons for the ban better and worked more closely with the community. However, I do not understand the extreme upset. From what I understand, he was an extremely toxic element of the community that drove new and old users away due to his repeated harassment, which does more damage than having him off the site and loosing his prolific enforcement of the speedy deletion policy. One of the reasons why they should have communicated better is seen in the following abstract. It also demonstrates how toxic the community is and reminds me a lot of how GamerGate started: The ex-boyfriend of the game developer of "Depression Quest" alleged, in a very long rant, that she was sleeping with a game journalist for a good review in order to profit from it. Of course, that was complete bullshit as, even believing she slept with him, (a) he did not write a review for the game and (b) the game is for free. It is and was never about actual misconduct on the side of the victim of harassment but rather about their identity and how that upsets the community because they're an "Other" in "their" space (here, a woman and a transgender editor) > Those dynamics are central to Fram’s ban. Egged on by Fram’s insistence that the foundation had actually banned him because of a grudge, and stymied by the foundation’s refusal to name the complainant, Wikipedians began to scour his history on the platform, looking for someone to blame. > Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment. The editor, whose contributions focused on women athletes, lesbian history, and abortion rights, felt that Fram’s pattern of correcting her spelling and deleting her stubs — short, unfinished articles that are culled when they sit dormant for too long — demonstrated a lack of good faith. [...] > More recently, Fram had an acrimonious semantic debate with a high-profile transgender editor over whether referring to them as “xe” constituted misgendering. It culminated in an ugly claim by Fram that he would not be misracing a black person by calling them the n-word, only being racist. "Please, stop being cruel to individuals whose names have come up in the course of this issue" > On Wikipedia and in the forums of Wikipediocracy, a site where Wikipedians gather to discuss and criticize Wikipedia, users speculated about a secret romantic connection between the woman editor and a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board and about whether the trans editor might’ve been pretending to be trans to win a fight with Fram. The vitriol toward those two users grew so intense that Risker chastised some Wikipedians in her critical note about the ban.