This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae