Talk:Willem Buiter

message: I suggest to include the following paragraph since the Second U.S. District Court (that is only one step away from the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled last week that Buiter must hand over evidence in the Mees v. Buiter defamation case, something Buiter has refused to do so far. Atlantacity (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In July 2013 Buiter accused his lover Heleen Mees of harassment. In March 2014, the court decided that the case against Mees was to be dismissed in one year provided that she complies with two conditions. Later that year, in June 2014, Mees responded by filing for damages in excess of $20,000,000 against Buiter.  On July 17, 2015, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Mees to gather evidence for the defamation case in the Netherlands.
Atlantacity (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to say not at this time, perhaps when the case is settled.  WP:BLP discourages turning biographies of living people into attack pages and the edits seem to be coming from an editor with a clear WP:COI, interested in using Wikipedia to portray their side as the dominant one.  WP:BLPCRIME definitely applies in this case, which discourages adding such material unless a conviction is obtained.  WCMemail 11:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PERHAPS WHEN THE CASE IS SETTLED??? Because this doesn't involve Willem Buiter, the straight-shooter, as you all so much like to think of him? In case it wasn't clear, I agree with Atlantacity and think it must be included. 114.250.104.146 (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IP socking will simply get you blocked for disruptive editing, no one is fooled by it.  WCMemail 14:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: There is no IP socking as far as I am concerned. Maybe have a closer look in the mirror. 114.250.104.146 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or not... We must not include this until the final decision has been made. Everything else is illegal under US law. Nobody wants the WMF legal team to edit an article and block or ban users because they included illegal content despite warning.
Look at it like that: You are charged of defamation(wrong claim) and this is highly visible in Wikipedia, and you are portrayed negatively. The charges are ruled to be unfounded... but because of Wikipedia, your name is tainted. You take legal action against Wikipedia and the authors...
and that is exactly what we have to prevent. That is the reason why WP:BLPCRIME exists. And that is the reason why your addition should not be included.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry, this is utter non sense. If there is any country in the world where people who are under investigation/litigation  have no expectation of privacy at all, it is the United States. Atlantacity (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: If what you say were true, no newspaper would be able to report on ongoing civil and criminal cases. But they do. The Associated Press wrote about the Second U.S. District Court ruling and NPR mentioned it on the radio. Atlantacity (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: That's why the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether serious news media reported about it. And they did. See AP and NPR, two news organisations with a stellar reputation. Atlantacity (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Wee Curry Monster's argument should stand. It is not a matter of privacy it is a matter of following our own policy. I also share Drmies reasoning. The information at this point does not seem encyclopedic. I think it should not be included.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heleen Mees