Talk:Steve Cox (artist)

Controversy
I have semi-protected the page for a week and would be prepared to fully protect as needed should edit warring continue. Please discuss the issues here and propose changes rather than repeatedly reverting contributions. Fæ (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Contesting the Deletion of My Page
The person who is continually vandalising the page 'Steve Cox (artist)', under the section 'Controversy', is clearly somebody connected to Professor Elizabeth Grierson or one of her agents, as they refer to matters which were only known to Grierson or her lawyers. They have written that the court case was "not about art, although Cox claims that it was". This statement is false; the case hinged entirely on Cox's art work and the fact that Grierson felt scared by its content, and many dozens of examples of his art were used in Grierson's evidence against the artist. They also have written that the artist on "at least one occasion...had used words of violence to another staff member". This is a false statement which was never brought into court. They also claim that Cox's expert witness was not used in court because his testimony was not relevant to the case. This is untrue; the case was dropped before the expert witness could be called, and because of the expert witness. They also claim that "the case was settled out of court". This is not true; the case against the artist was dropped by Grierson. I submit the following links which confirm all of the above information:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/art-school-altercation-puts-new-spin-on-cyberstalking-20110413-1de72.html

http://media.crikey.com.au/dm/newsletter/dailymail_b4861e22cab5be8d5ae4bb6122493428.html#article_10584

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2011/3193018.htm

I have approached Cox's barrister, Tim North who approved my current submission in the section 'Controversy' as true and accurate. He supervised my removal of unsubstantiated and malicious material and the renovation of the section to its present correct state. Heathengod (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I am reading your response here as not a legal issue and this appears to be a matter that can be resolved by discussion and reference to the verification policy and reliable sources guideline (which I would strongly recommend as the process most likely to get the stable outcome you are looking for). However, if you have sought legal advice and wish to ask for particular action, you should confidentially write to info-en(at)wikimedia.org with your request. I suggest you avoid speculating as to the motives of other editors or who they might be (see WP:AGF and WP:OUTING) as any issue you have can be resolved without the discussion getting distracted by counter claims. Note that if comments here are perceived as a legal threat, then your account may be blocked as a precautionary measure until the matter is resolved in line with WP:NLT.
 * In practical terms, if the article gets reverted in such a way that reliably sourced and neutral information is being replaced by poorly sourced or less neutral text then longer term article protection and blocking of those accounts that are demonstrably persistently edit-warring is likely to result. In the meantime I suggest you stick to the bold, revert, discuss process and take care to avoid reverting any changes more than once within any 24 hour period. You may also benefit from taking a look at WP:COI and asking for help on WP:COIN if you think it applies. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)