QUOTE
Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine from 20 years ago. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Wikipedia, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors — that we're not going to be asked to edit alon gside people who are stalking us — then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target. It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The old boyfriend, Neil Croally, told me to my face on June 5, 1989 in Arlington, Virginia, that (name redacted) was his girlfriend. Maybe he lied, but that doesn't justify Slim's spin on it. That "seriously libellous material" was from John K. Cooley, who was reporting what his boss Pierre Salinger believed to be the case about (name redacted), when Salinger locked her out of her office in London in the early 1990s. Cooley told me that Salinger believed that (name redacted) had been working on behalf of (an intelligence agency) while employed by ABC News. Cooley has not retracted this statement, and I have no doubt that Pierre Salinger believed this.
The woman I "hounded" was Katefan0, who is still a reporter at Congressional Quarterly. Last June she had a press pass to the House/Senate press gallery, but I don't see her on the gallery list anymore. All I did was ask Katefan0 to identify herself on her user page. She had already claimed on her user page that she was a reporter, and an alum of the University of Texas at Austin journalism school. I told her to identify herself because otherwise it was a conflict of interest for a journalist to be an anonymous admin on Wikipedia, where she was occasionally fiddling with biographies of members of Congress. I never contacted her employer. Ironically, Jimmy Wales now supports the notion that those claiming real-world credentials should use their real names and be verifiable. SlimVirgin apparently disagrees with Jimmy.
Now that I've corrected Slim's Spin, the important point here is that Slim has, for the first time as "SlimVirgin from Wikipedia," confirmed that she is indeed (name redacted). If I was guilty of a mistaken identity, I'd be "stalking" the wrong person, not her. And the exchange I had with John Cooley would have been about a (name redacted) who was not the same as SlimVirgin. But no, it's very clear that SlimVirgin is (name redacted), for anyone who needed more evidence.