Wikimedia is currently not even providing information about their actions to the arbcom. How can you argue that the process didn't work when it is apparently c

Wikimedia is currently not even providing information about their actions to the arbcom. How can you argue that the process didn't work when it is apparently contingent on information which is being concealed from it? People in the discussion aren't for the most part arguing that fram shouldn't be banned-- the discussion is almost exclusively about the constitutional issues and accusations of impropriety. ... but "bit of an arsehole" could mean a lot of things and doesn't necessarily mean abusive. Edit: The arbcom has issued a statement-- a fairly strongly worded one, by arbcom's standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...