On 6/14/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: [some very mature and considered responses deleted for the sake of space] I concede much of that. The feeling that Brandt has, or might be seen to have, achieved an end by means of threats, doesn't persuade me but might persuade others. My own feeling that someone as obscure as Brandt could rightly feel harassed by the presence of an article about him is persuasive to me, but may be tempered by other considerations in the minds of other people of good faith. And so on. But there is an element of spite, and digging in of heels. I think that's why this proposed solution is being endorsed by so many people. We're all flocking to say "the information may be valiable and should sink of swim on its merits, but the history of this individual is not important" because we feel, instinctively, that this is a controversy that has harmed us as a community and as people. "Do no harm" cuts both ways. And that point, having been reached, Utterly and irrevocably changes the rules for WIkipedia. Strict proceduralism is a busted flush, too rigid ever to be workable. Elements of the real world enter slowly but surely into the formerly insulated world of Wikipedia: real living people don't like rubbish being written about them, obscure real living people who are involved in a nine day wonder or silly season story don't get memorialized. Victims of internet memes aren't to be victimized further here. This is a big change, and I'm not surprised that many people are disquieted by it. We're growing up, ladies and gentlemen. We're growing up.