Since this episode of our forum history apparently had to happen entirely out in public, I will close the saga off in public too by acknowledging here that Majid's behaviour, here and in private consultation with the forum staff, resulted in his forum account being terminated. This decision was taken for a number of reasons, most of which @IronRain
details in his post above me here.
It did not need to come to this point. At several places along the conversation we had agreed on all points about the project and its interactions (or lack of) with the OF site and the add-ons we hold here. But as soon as we reached agreement, the scope of the project was immediately different in some key way, which invalidated the previous agreement. This was, as you can imagine, quite difficult to navigate.
It was also publicly revealed in thread here that Majid is indeed the same user as computerex, a previously banned member from some years previous. This much was known to us, and normally isn't something we allow, but when he rejoined the site several years had passed since his original ban and we were minded to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his conduct.
Unfortunately our capacity to tolerate situations like this cannot be limitless. Majid deliberately and extremely publicly broke several forum rules here, including making private conversation public without consent of all parties, and some extremely pointed and public transgressions of the TOS, which was put in place to protect the add-on content we have been entrusted with by the community. Despite spending several days discussing the topic and attempting to work with Majid on the issues presented, it's clear that cooperation was, and is, not something that Majid is interested in when it involves compromise on his part.
As Majid is now no longer a forum member here, but keen to use other platforms to protest and complain about his treatment by the staff here, it felt important to clarify exactly why his account was closed - not for any technical issue, or for the existence of the project as is the claim, but because of the confrontational attitude, the ever-shifting arguments, and the duplicity he's presented here.
That's all I have to say about the matter. As usual with situations like this there will be fault on both sides to a greater or lesser degree; hopefully by making the situation a little more transparent in this case it's easier for others to make their own assessment on how this went and why.