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.