"[SlimVirgin] has absolutely no relation to the wild stories that this article promulgates." —Jimmy Wales, 2007-07-27, on Slashdot

But more disturbing to me is Jay's hypocrisy about privacy. Jay is, as anyone who reads Wikipedia Review knows, assidiously careful about his privacy. What few personal claims he's made about himself don't add up, and it's likely that he's lying in order to misdirect inquiries into his identity. He's also very careful about protecting the privacy of his friends, such as when he oversighted every edit made by SlimVirgin's other account (User:Slimv) on the grounds that those edits might possibly allow someone to determine her identity. But his respect for privacy doesn't extend beyond the circle of his friends; he has no compunction against revealing information that comes to him under a bond of privacy (that is, checkuser data) when doing so serves his own interests.

We should not forget that Jayjg was appointed by Jimmy to some exalted position. I forget exactly what it was, and don't feel like looking it up right now.

Judd,

it would be more interesting to see how many edits were oversighted from key articles like Pan Am 103, Pierre Salinger etc

I suspect that there is more to those articles than meets the eye.

There's nothing in the GFDL that says Wikipedia MUST distribute all edits, only that if they do so the author must be credited and you will not be held responsible for the changes others make to your work.

Kelly Martin says:
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/...nonymizing.html

We should not forget that Jayjg was appointed by Jimmy to some exalted position. I forget exactly what it was, and don't feel like looking it up right now.

Oh just choose a pronoun and use it

"He" is gender neutral when one is unsure of the gender of a person. Now, there are some left-wing feminists that say it should be "she" in gender neutral situations, but they'll have to get through the English professors and teachers first! (apologies for going off topic)

On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new
> > account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is
> > quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this
> > situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
>
> I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The
> fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to
> spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should
> simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here,
> just ignored.
>
The good is that Sarah can once again contribute pseudonymously, at
least until she's outed again (which could take long or short
depending on how carefully she edits this time around).

On the other hand, if you want to ignore it, then ignore it. Stop
oversighting things, stop banning links to websites simply because
they provide the information, stop deleting comments which in good
faith ask questions about it, stop contributing to this thread.
Ignoring it of course means giving in as well, because if you ignore
it all the private details are going to come out. Various people at
Wikipedia Review have already reconstructed pretty much all of the
edits that were oversighted. Archive.org contains much of the rest.
User:SlimVirgin is outed. That's the reality of the situation. You
can call the people anything you want, but calling people names
doesn't change reality.