> obviously illegal activities, e.g. child pornography. Right. There was another recent incident which generated some drama due to the lack of transparency by

> obviously illegal activities, e.g. child pornography. Right. There was another recent incident which generated some drama due to the lack of transparency by Wikimedia, but it ultimately fizzled because the banned user in question was silent and so absent any alternative people assumed that the ban was well justified. In this case, the banned user has written a calm and clear description of events from their perspective, including paraphrasing the communication they received from Wikimedia. This discussion has essentially foreclosed the possibility that it was something like child pornography in question-- and, in fact, the specific citation of a rude remark towards arbcom stands out in particular because arbcom apparently had no involvement in the ban.