I m going to dispute your decision to deny to others access to such information It is of considerable significance for an attorney of such stature to have done something as alleged It is of public interests and that is incontrovertible Moreover to put an end to your debate let s remember that this matter was picked up by news sources throughout the nation and as a result it need not be belabored further as to its need to be noted in the subject article Also your argument that it is in violation of WP UNDUE because it is allegedly designed to impugn the character of the person is ludicrous and for good reason It is an infamous public act on the subject s part as documented by numerous news outlets and it is being duly noted irrespective of what you think of it Since when is Wikipedia subject to third world censorship Should your logic of censuring factual information because it can have the effect of impugning someone be applied universally then Charles Manson s murder convictions need to be removed stat So yes let reason guide your decisions that you attempt to apply upon all Wikipedia viewers and not unfounded impulses with all due respect