QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:19pm)
Here comes Rd232 calling to send the whole thing tumbling down the memory hole;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68017826 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68018793QUOTE
{{comment}} The English Wikipedia arbitration committee has apparently reversed Geni's block of Beta M, a few minutes after Geni's opening of this thread here, with the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=480636175&oldid=480635994 "Block is already removed on Commons. Block was based on a faulty assumption and did not follow any established policy."] There doesn't seem any Commons policy that applies, and [[:en:Wikipedia:Child protection]] talks about problematic onwiki behaviour or "[editors] who identify themselves as pedophiles". This doesn't seem to apply here. In addition, that policy says "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel." I would suggest, in view of ArbCom's decision, that we do that here: delete the section and RevDelete old revisions that show it. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=480622687&oldid=463769646 – You're quoting Beta_M, not ArbCom. I don't see any evidence that indicates that ArbCom reversed their decision. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Rd232 is wrong. Rd232 isn't even quoting an ArbCom decision, and the block hasn't even been removed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User%3ABeta_MAlso,
Beta_M is a self-identifying "childlove" advocate. I don't see any reason to censor and RevDel the discussion. Quoting Beta_M's own words isn't libel.