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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
