Where you say that you aren't sure that there are any Wikipedians who could write a neutral article about Brandt... I think that you are vastly overestimating the number of Wikipedians who even keep up with the whole Brandt/WR saga. Don't get me wrong, I think lots of Wikipedians know about it, I just think that most don't really care.
I frankly have no opinion one way or the other on the guy. I think that the people who attack Brandt because they think they have a right to privacy or confidentiality are deceiving themselves, since editing what is essentially a public document sort of makes each Wikipedian a public figure, if only in a microscopic way.
In any event, I am sure there are plenty of editors who could do the research, interpret the sources, and render a pretty reasonably accurate bio of Brandt. Do you really think that every Wikipedian is following this story?
DickClarkMises
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:07:00 -0400 From: Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider
<snip>
Those all seem like creative and possibly acceptable solutions, at
least so long as "consensus" in "consensus to keep" is treated more like the "supermajority" that is currently the de facto standard.
I think the problem with a bio on Brandt goes beyond the usual, though. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] seems to apply to that biography for pretty much all active editors, which suggests that all of us should at least exercise great caution when editing the page. I'm not sure a neutral bio can possibly be written about Brandt by Wikipedians.