Thanks, but I did contact the admin who stuck my name on there. I didn't get a response, I removed my own declaration and name. Didn't consider that a revert at the time, just an edit. The only thing I considered a revert was actually reverting when someone cheekily readded it. I reverted under WP:Libel and left the following details on AN/I:
"I have never in my entire wiki history (or life) intently read or edited any articles or biog relating to The Troubles: it does not interest me one iota. My name on that list was defamatory and I exercised WP:Libel to remove it and to save time getting it suppressed. It's common sense and normal reasoning that we don't identify/ban someone as a sex offender without proof, and you just as equally don't list them, on a public website, where I am not anonymous, as being involved in highly contentious (and potentially incriminating) topics, which people might take literally and use against them (even life threatening). The admin was wrong in his suppositions, the underlying comparison was wrong, the warning does not apply to me. Might as well try to warn me not to war-edit in 9/11-theory, holocaust-denial or far-right political party discussions: the fact that I never have or do prevails over such notices, as does upholding AGF in acknowledging that I don't. The admin was advised of my removing the entry, and has not taken the matter any further, and neither should anyone else – let sleeping dogs lie, and no one will have excuses to cast spurious remarks."
If libellous remarks can be removed from BLPs under WP:3RRNO I assume too they can be removed under a similar 1RRNO situation. Despite not having a mainspace article on me, I am a living person and have rights to privacy too, as much as any BLP. This listing is a threat to my privacy and safety under Wiki's own policy. I don't need to threaten legal riff-raff, Wikipedian's should know this is not a safe way to expose people. I feel even more exposed by it being raised again. These talk pages are open, scanned by bots and all sorts, which compromises anonymity. This is not a good compromise. The physical safety and well-being of people is more important than the protection of a few bytes data on some articles.
 [Chat • RFF]