Vee
Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed
to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I
am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to
[[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting
his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's
merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his
PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody.
I endorse this viewpoint.
Just call it the exception WP:HUMANITARIANGROUNDS
It is the right thing to do morally, as it violates very basic
standards of fairness to discuss a person so directly, yet deny them
the opportunity to defend themselves *in the same forum*.
It is the right thing to do pragmatically, as otherwise
accusations of sockpuppetry fly back and forth.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of dispute
resolution, as it allows at least the (admittedly small) chance of
developing some mutual understanding from the discussion.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of minimizing
harm, as otherwise the situation looks like something out of Kafka
("Anyone can write accusations against you, but *you* aren't even allowed
to speak in your defense, since we don't like you and we 0wnz ur bi0").
If nothing else, the obvious ill-will that is generated from
not even being able to defend oneself should make the choice clear.
I too endorse this well-expressed view.
This is not about Brandt or the bloody-minded obsession that some have
expressed about Brandt. This place is about building an encyclopedia,
and that should take precedence over who happens to have made the edit.
I am often appalled by the lack of understanding for principles of
fundamental justice in some people's attitudes. A person whose
character is questioned in a public forum needs to have an equivalent
right to defend himself in an equally public forum.
Ec