Ok, so there is a malice standard in Britain (I think that's really interesting that the standard in the US is that you need to prove malice if the claim is false and the person is a public figure whereas malice is sufficient reason in Britain even if the claim is true. Ah well, at some point either the British subjects or surrounding countries are going to tell the British government that they won't put up with their standards of libel. But that's not today so moving on...) Ok, so unless any Wikipedian or the many newspapers published the results with malice we don't have much of an issue. I doubt that di Stefano is going to be able to prove that by any stretch of the imagination. What we need to be concerned about is the possibility of a lawsuit, far more than whether or not he can win it.
That's it. I don't seem him winning any lawsuit against anyone.
I think our standard ought to exclude malicious editing, when we can identify it, regardless of truth or falsity. Not that any editing in this matter could be so characterized.
Fred