[First off, there's no need to name the user, and I'm kinda-glad in this case that I think it'd be relatively hard for anyone but a mod to go back and figure out who. This isn't about the user. I assume they're trying to make the site better like the rest of us, that they never thought to come check ahead of time on meta, and that they will continue being a productive member. Hell: I happen to agree that most questions should be unprotected. This post is about the manner of its doing, and wanting to set a signpost for future stackizens.]
A user last week unprotected 700 questions, leaving 4 protected.
That's about 99.4% of our protected questions, unprotected on one person's judgment.
Almost everything about routine Stack-usage is transparent and builds in some redundancy/error-checking. Edit histories, bumping questions, queues. This is status-by-design. And this is important: communicating with each other in real-time is how a lot of Stack-education gets done. I remember during my first Hatmas deciding to go for an editing badge and being gently introduced to the term "flooding the frontpage." Lesson learned! (Hi, SSD!)
This, though, is a corner-case where the users' actions were unreviewable and basically invisible. Unprotections appear in a question's timeline, but you'd need to know what question to look at first. And I'm not aware that there is a way to search for questions that were protected. Unprotections don't go into a queue or bump a question.
So a user stumbled into a thing they had the privileges to do, thought they should do to improve the site, and went ahead and made a project of it.
Should they have?