Looks like Slimmy is getting dressed down on WikiEN-l:
-----------------------------

<<Slimmy>> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar checked.
<David Gerard> ... Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
-----------------------------

<<<Slimmy>>> Both the first and second editor were affected by this. The first abandoned the checked accounts because Lar is not trusted.
<<Luna>> Lar is not trusted? Why not? By whom? ...
<David Gerard>Indeed. Casual slander is not a robust method of policy formation.
-----------------------------

<David Katz>SlimVirgin has abusively sockpuppeted before - as Sweet Blue Water if my memory is correct - a sock which she tag teamed with on articles and used to vote twice in some instances. I don't think she's in a position to get self righteous that anyone would think she might be sockpuppeting again, particularly as she's never apologized or explained the SWB sock.
----------------------------

And for the grand finale, from Larry himself;

Sarah:

I've been mostly staying out of addressing your allegations because I rather
hoped that, given the amount of discussion and investigation there was about
the whole thing, that this matter had been settled some time ago. I also
refrained from giving detail in order to preserve the privacy of all
involved as much as possible. I intend to hew to that and not give detail
here either. However I just cannot allow this canard of yours to stand
without correction.

> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that
> Lar checked. If you know some of the details of the case, and
> I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of
> them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to
> perform the first check,

Patently false, and repeating it won't make it true. There was a very good
reason for the initial check. I performed the initial check based on my
judgement that a good and valid request for a check had been presented to
me. An ombudsman reviewed the request I was given and agreed with me that I
had good reason to run the check. You conveniently fail to mention that.

> or the second

As every good checkuser does, I follow checks where they lead. And when they
lead to surprising results, as this one did, I don't go public without close
consultation with my colleagues. Which is what happened in this case. After
consultation, there was no need to make the results public or act further on
them, and every good reason to not do so. You conveniently fail to mention
that as well.

> but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me.

You assume too much, I think. Unless of course your real reason for raising
this is to try to damage my reputation in order to win unrelated disputes, a
tactic that I think will increasingly fail you going forward, as more people
realise you do so.

> He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has
been harassing me for over a year.

I think you overplay the harassment card sometimes. This is one of those
times.

Others have advised you that this matter is settled. Let it be. Stop trying
to smear people.

Larry Pieniazek