And it's Derek Coetzee for
the win!
QUOTE
I was the one who unblocked the user. At the time I was not aware of the evidence Geni presented in this thread, and although I don't think it's grounds for an immediate block, I think it is a concern when the user attempts to directly modify draft policies to reflect their views, etc. In light of their conflict of interest, I would advice them to stick to discussion pages when involved in policy discussions related to child pornography, and to avoid linking offsite resources related to advocacy. I have no problem with them participating in relevant deletion requests, since DRs are closed by admins and a user's opinion there is weighed only according to its merit (and moreover, their opinions expressed thus far in DRs have been consistent with policy and the law). I believe if the user continues to be conscientious about acting in accordance with policy and the law, the need to block them will not arise. However, we should keep an eye on them, and warn them promptly if they begin to engage in any form of advocacy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I was going to bold the ridiculous parts, but that didn't leave anything unbolded.
Also, the same information that Geni posted in that thread was posted on Beta M's talk page under the heading "I have been blocked" when Coetzee unblocked him, so I don't know how he could have missed it. I wonder what alerted Coetzee to the block in the first place, since there was no unblock request posted. Perhaps a friendly Commons admin might tell us what Russavia revdeleted from the page. The edit summary was "chat log"...
This post has been edited by carbuncle: