Fred Bauder wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute
which contains the language:
"Content has been removed from this article because of a dispute over the legality of its inclusion, and so the article may not meet normal Wikipedia standards. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Raises some interesting questions. "Normal Wikipedia standards" permit violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Do not take malice into account? I don't think so.
Focus on that word "malice"; that is the legal black hole which will produce serious liability.
I completely agree that no editor should act maliciously or repeat malicious accusations as if they were fact, and so material like that would presumably fail a host of standards, like NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP. We shouldn't rely on BLP alone for that, of course. We may or may not be less concerned about injuring a corporate or governmental reputation, but those people can still cause us plenty of legal trouble.
I believe we should use some sort of warning template when we think an article is missing otherwise good material just because we've been scared by threat of legal action. It is part of our duty to readers to let them know that an article is compromised. It sounds like that's happening on Giovanni di Stefano, and it definitely happened on Gregory Lauder-Frost. I'm not particularly attached to that wording, though; feel free to tinker.
William