Ah, that makes a lot mote sense, thanks - and I wouldn't describe that as being Wikipedia's Linus. (Linus's known public behavior, at least, does not include si

Ah, that makes a lot mote sense, thanks - and I wouldn't describe that as being Wikipedia's Linus. (Linus's known public behavior, at least, does not include singling out an individual for harassment.) But then it re-raises the question of why community governance couldn't handle this, since the worry of the existing community leadership being assholes themselves doesn't apply. Banning users from harassing other users, and enforcing it, seems like a good chunk of what ArbCom already does, no? If WMF wants to take this role, that seems likely beneficial and fine (to me, as a non-Wikipedian observer) but shouldn't they coordinate with ArbCom? (Also, they should say that, because there are now a dozen other theories of what Fram did, as you can see from these comments, the open letter, the BuzzFeed News article, etc. If you punish someone for X and don't say X was the offense, you're wasting an opportunity to dissuade others from doing X.)