QUOTE(DanMurphy @ Wed 7th March 2012, 12:41pm)
So to review: A major defender of the porn on Wikipedia commons is a convicted child pornographer, who makes videos about the unfair persecution of pedophiles by "the man." The convicted child pornographer has a voice in attempts to change image policy surrounding pornography, its filtering, and the protection of children. The convicted child pornographer is unblocked, and this forum is attacked by other Wikipedia Commons/Administrators as a "horrible site" for... pointing out that he's a convicted child pornographer.
Do I have this right?
Nearly, but that falls into the trap of suggesting this is some sort of ad hominem attack. I think I would say that the point is not pointing out he is a convicted child pornographer, self-professed pervert and so on, but that he is actively promoting pedophilia on Wikimedia and there are other Wikimedians who don't like it that this is thought to be any sort of problem at all. It's not like there is room for a fuzzy AGF grey area here.
I still would like to know who is deleting edits on Wikimedia to hide his inappropriate activities.
I bet Jimbo is staying well away from this and will be calling on his talk page patrollers to hide this away. Probably time to getting on to embarrassing Sue about the problem not just being image filters but the administration of Commons is in the hands of people who actively support the collection of child pornography.