Anthony wrote:
Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally.
Okay, but I don't see the relevance.
It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia
With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say one way or the other,
As far as I know, there has been no assertion that the user has edited Wikipedia in a manner advocating pedophilia (and in fact, edits to pedophilia-related articles were examined and found to be neutral).
especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been indefinitely blocked.
Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was "the right thing."
I should add that I don't have access to the user's deleted edits.
Virtually all of them are the creation of since-deleted redirects and disambiguation pages. I recall the massive disruption that they caused (and Tyciol's stubborn insistence that the community was wrong about their harmfulness) and view this as a much stronger rationale for a ban than what is currently under discussion.