There's currently a discussion ongoing about undeleting SV's talk page history which was admin deleted last year by Crum375:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...talk:SlimVirgin

Thanks to ElinorD's tireless efforts, I can now see the diff of Derktar's post on SlimVirgin's talk page that motivated me to break my silence and request the DRV. Now I will place that conversation in context.

Derktar wrote something on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss. I don't know what he wrote because I am not an admin, and I don't know where to find the undeleted copy that was posted on the web. (This, too, was a ridiculously wrong deletion; courtesy blanking was more than enough. But I don't want to start another drama, so I'll let it pass.) SlimVirgin warned him about it. Previously I only knew half of the conversation. Now I know all of it.

SlimVirgin wrote:

==Attack sites==

Derktar, please do not link to attack sites anywhere on Wikipedia, repeat anything they are saying about individuals, or post what you believe is an editor's real name unless that editor has named himself. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Derktar responded:

==Regarding Wikipedia Review==

I was unaware that the Wikipedia Review was considered an attack site, for all the articles I have perused over there most of the time seems to be reasonable debate about content, GFDL and vandal issues although I have witnessed the occasional loss of temper and incoherent speech, most of the time the editors simply seem to have a difference of opinion over how Wikipedia is run and have suggestions and ways of fixing what they percieve to be sub-par although most of my searching is concerned with General Discussion. Regards, Derktar 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

SlimVirgin replied:

Thanks for your note. It is very much regarded as an attack site and is therefore not allowed to be linked to, per the ArbCom. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

("The ArbCom" is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitraion/MONGO. It had closed about a month before this conversation took place.)

Why is this interesting? Because in my DRV request, I linked to Derktar's post on Wikipedia Review! I was hoping to get at least a warning for linking to an "attack site," but I guess SlimVirgin and her friends didn't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla68#Canvasing

I love how ElinorD is spending hours and hours sifting through the deleted versions to restore them to archives, minus the threatening attack edits.

Imagine all that time! Imagine if they applied that time toward building an encyclopedia instead of hiding from real-name identification. Does anyone truly understand what SlimVirgin's net effect on the encyclopedia project's productivity is? My guess:

Total person-hours of "benefit" thanks to article writing and process improvements: 4,810 per year.

Total person-hours of "harm" due to article writing and process degradation: 104,810 per year.

I love how Slimmy suggests that people visit "attack sites"!
[1]

Yes, Brandt's site is one of the few that might actually meet the description of an attack site, and SV just suggested that people review it!

The contents of the AFD debate can be found here.

She says whatever suits her needs at the time with no regard for consistency. But I guess that's obvious.Why, so one could be accused of harassment and/or stalking by daring to post on her talk page?I guess the days of JayJG oversighting edits by the dozen on Slim's behalf have ended. Did you overdo it, Jay?

The main effect is the blocking and chasing off of good, productive editors. How much better would Wikipedia be if say ArnieP (Jorge), Vulturell and Newport had continued editing in peace?

Careful, Guy. You're coming dangerously close to sounding like you're agreeing with me here.

When have I ever disagreed with you when you were right?