It's simple, really. If you are likely to get personally offended and thus emotionally riled up by a topic, you probably shouldn't be moderating posts about that topic, because you're going to be predisposed to judging people harshly about it regardless of their actual intent.
The admin in question demonstrated this herself by demanding harsh moderation about terms that weren't being used negatively.
To be honest, while I find their fetishes pretty disgusting, I don't see much value in going down a rabbit hole of "someone the admin knows has nasty kinks." I'm more disturbed by the fact they'd engage in their kinkshit publicly in a way that can be tied back to their real names than by the fact that they have weird fetishes. There doesn't seem to be much point in bringing those up when you could just bring up, you know, the pedophilia.
I mean, she not only hired her father after he was arrested for child abuse and rape (which he committed in his house while she was living under his roof), she filed him under a false name on the paperwork with the political party. She 100% knew what he had done. That's all that needs to be said.
Transtrenders seem to have won the progressive stack just by virtue of the fact that social climbers and manipulative shitheads can just pretend to be trans and rake in the oppression points to force people to listen to them, while the couple of people who tried to claim "trans-blackness" were openly mocked at best.
I've had a fair number of trans friends over the years who were completely reasonable and the ones I know now hate the current state of the online "trans community" because it's just one big circlejerk where all you have to do is claim to be trans and suddenly you can do no wrong ever.
So, to recap: They did not vet her background (let's call this either laughably incompetent or a lie) but they put unprecedented levels of protections in place, and they failed to address whether the removal of the news article was automated or not, probably because the answer would make them look very bad. You have to actually read the article in question to find out she's even mentioned - it's not an article about her.
Even taking them at their word, that means they just put her name on Reddit's spam filter because she said so, without even questioning whether there was a reason her name was already out there. If you wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, you could argue that she was taking advantage of their trust to squash people talking about her scandal without their knowledge, but that's still an extreme degree of incompetence that has to exist in the first place for her to take advantage of.