Gwern Branwen wrote:
as opposed to Brandt,
where it isn't unthinkable a judge would decide that the decision
to keep the article was bad
No, that really is pretty much unthinkable. There is absolutely nothing
legally problematic at all in our having a biography about Daniel
Brandt. He has been featured in major newspapers on multiple occasions
for a variety of different things. His work, and our article about him,
is precisely the sort of speech that the 1st Amendment is designed to
protect.
If there is libel about Brandt in Wikipedia, I am sure that he will
point it out. He is unblocked now precisely so that he CAN point it out.