This entire discussion really and truly misses the point in a grand way.
Yes, information has been oversighted to protect the personal identities of many people, both Wikipedia editors and members of the general public. The reasons include inadvertantly revealing personal information as well as the deliberate posting by trolls of personal information. This is policy and will continue to be policy.
In this particular case, due to some really spectacular nonsense, this is being treated as evidence that a private person who has been badly harassed by stalkers and lunatics is... a former spy? Please.
Many editors at Wikipedia have been involved in dealing with extraordinarily crazy people. Some of these people are dangerous in real life. Some of them have made direct physical threats. Others have made phone calls to people's employers. Others have done some homemade self-styled "investigative journalism" that any rational and kind person would see as being what it really is: abusive stalking.
I fully support the right of the Wikipedia community to protect itself from those kinds of lunatics by giving support to those who need to maintain their privacy.
Have edits been oversighted to protect people's identity? Damn straight they have.
Are there massive factual errors that make me laugh out loud at the speculation in the weird rant Slashdot linked to? Absolutely. The amount of truth in that piece is so slim, you'd have to be a complete intellectual virgin to take any of it at face value.
--Jimbo