User talk:JamesMarshLaw

Masha Allen

Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Trifecta

I am curious about why the entry on Masha Allen was deleted? This is a curious time to delete her article since some very newsworthy things are happening which, if anything, will make her story even more significant. I am interested why, after all this time, the entry about Masha was removed?

JamesMarshLaw 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)James R. Marsh, Esq.

Hello Mr. Marsh. The reason for the deletion of Ms. Allen's article can be found here in our deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Masha_Allen

"BLP" in this case refers to our policy regarding biographies of living people: Mr. Sandifer felt that all edits to the article as it existed at the time were not encyclopedic and 'inhumane'. If you have more in-depth questions, please don't hesitate to reply here or at the BLP noticeboard. -- nae'blis 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your BLP policy and do not see the word "inhumane" as part of that policy. Also since I can no longer review the "article as it existed at the time" I do not know if recent changes made it "inhumane." I guess I'm somewhat confused since the article has served as a neutral and well balanced source of information about Masha, child pornography and international adoption for several years. Clearly this child's story is not merely episodic; there is a federal law named for her and her situation. There are many "defenders" of child pornography and international adoption who want this story suppressed and forgotten. There are many political agendas at work here. If anything this is an entry which is more timely now than ever with many more people invested in seeing it blotted out of history. I seriously question someone who justifies deletion of an entire article based on a term - "inhumane" - which does not even exist in the BLP policy. I strongly sense foul play.

JamesMarshLaw 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)James R. Marsh, Esq.

The word inhumane is not there specifically, but an article without sources for the things it says, especially when they regard living people, is treated with extra sensitivity and caution on Wikipedia. Nothing precludes a well-written article from being written on the subject, but administrators are allowed to use their best discretion to avoid causing harm with pages on such a large and well-known site as Wikipedia. What you consider 'foul play' could very likely be also termed 'erring on the side of caution'.

Your next step for requesting the article's undeletion is probably to follow the steps at Deletion Review; I can assist you with that process if necessary. Struck, see below. -- nae'blis 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the deleting admin here. This is, as you're aware, a messy situation, and, unfortunately, now that you're involving yourself in your role as her attorney, it's gotten messier, not cleaner. Please do not take this through DRV, as that procedure is not really suited to deal with the legal issues here. If you have any concerns, you'll want to address them directly to the Wikimedia Foundation or the Arbitration Committee. Phil Sandifer 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am a bit confused about why this is a "messy situation." The entry has been up for about two years. I monitor the entry regularly and have never seen anything which I consider inappropriate. If, however, there were recent changes which led to the deletion then I am totally unaware of it. What are the legal issues? What if anything led to the rapid deletion. I'm really not trying to be difficult or threatening but I now suspect that something has happened in terms of the entry which I am not privy to. Can you email me the last version of the entry which led to the deletion? Thank you. JamesMarshLaw 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw

It's messy for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's a BLP that narrates, in great detail, sensitive material involving Ms. Allen's rape and abuse. Second of all, it now has a lawyer involved. I am not opposed to an article on the subject existing as such (though I suspect Masha's Law would be the better article to write), but at this point it really needs to go through the Foundation or the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this. Wikipedia has a historical problem with articles about news events being presented in the form of biographies of the victims. It is, in general, the news event, and perhaps its consequences, which is notable, not the victim, and the victim in many cases would rather not have their future life dominated by it, if our email queues are anything to go by. Crimes which have lasting consequences - including being the catalyst for changes in the law - can be and are rightly subject of encyclopaedia articles, but as Phil says the context is probably better served by an article on the proposed law, or some other related subject. We are trying to do the decent thing by people who are through no fault of their own the subject of media attention (and bear in mind that courts often withhold the identity of victims due to similar concerns). This is a change which is supported by a large and increasing proportion of the community, and is being led from the top. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Masha's Law was signed into law by President Bush and is now a law not a "proposed law." The victim in this case is quite notable and it was MASHA'S STORY which was the driving force behind Masha's Law; you can not divorce the person from the process or the result. Masha is not content to be a victim which is why she changed the law and went public. She did not want to be known as the Disney World Girl or Internet Porn Girl. She is Masha; a person with a tragic history and the guts to speak the truth about child pornography, international adoption and a host of other "untouchable topics." The deletion of her history is a further violation of her life and her suffering.

JamesMarshLaw 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw

I can assure you Mr. Sandifer that there is nothing in that entry that is not in the public domain. In fact there is a great deal more to "Masha's Story" than what is in the entry. The discussion detailing her rape and abuse - which is not even a significant part of the entry - is true and has been discussed publicly in Congress, on national television, and in the Congressional Record (as well as the local and national media). Given ongoing state and national inquiries about Masha's situation; Peter Sotos book Show Adult; and on and on, I strongly suspect that something is up. The timing is curious to say the least. You Chicago connection is also intriguing. I will take the proper action. JamesMarshLaw 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw

I promise you, I have no idea what Show Adult is, nor who Peter Sotos is, I have never heard of Judge Cheryl Allen, I have no idea why my Chicago connection is at all interesting, and I had never heard of Masha Allen before yesterday. Beyond that, this really is a matter that needs to be taken up through the Foundation or arbitration committee. Phil Sandifer 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Sandifer, if your claims of total and complete innocence and ignorance are correct, why the rapid and immediate deletion without any community input? Why won't you restore the entry so we can see exactly what was so "inhumane"? This is what we attorneys call a violation of due process, breach of the rules and abrogation of policy. And you, it seems, have been the judge, jury and executioner of this entire suppression of the truth. JamesMarshLaw 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw

Because it was, I felt and continue to feel, the appropriate thing to do in the face of the BLP concerns. I promise you - take this to the arbcom or Wikimedia Foundation. An acceptable solution can certainly be found, but it needs to go through those channels. Phil Sandifer 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I will, Mr. Sandifer, take action which may or may not include a "wiki-centric" process. (This case does not seem appropriate for either arbcom or Wikimedia Foundation involvement - at least according to their policies and procedures.) Masha's case remains a high profile matter and will be treated accordingly. Your refusal to even email or restore the page which caused your concerns is simply shocking, especially from someone whose "creative works" were subject to censure and criminal investigation. Hypocrisy it seems is in no short supply, especially for the censors. JamesMarshLaw 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw

I think you need to clarify the above, as we have an absolute prohibition on legal threats, and anyone who makes a credible threat of legal action against another editor is liable to be summarily banned form the site. Please also take the time to familiarise yourself with the community's views on conflict of interest, which is clearly evident in this case. Whether or not the case is fit for inclusion in an article remains to be seen, but our policies are shaped by what we know of the impact we have on real people's lives, and anything which is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as opportunistic exploitation of a living individual is likely to be viewed very poorly indeed. That's a roundabout way of saying that we can talk about where else the content might be included, but an article on these events masquerading as a biography of someone who has no claim to fame outside of those events is not a good solution. What is the relevance to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act? Are you aiming to reinforce, rename or supplant that act? Can you provide external references to establish what it is you are trying to do? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First no one is making any legal threats as I have stated on this issue elsewhere on Wikipedia. Second I have contributed almost nothing to the article - a few corrections here and there - and have no interest in exploiting my client. Masha's Law was incorporated into the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and signed into law by President Bush in July 2006. The entry has been on Wikipedia in one form or another for over two years. I remain a bit perplexed by the timing of this sudden deletion and why it was initiated without community input. Also the rationale for the deletion keeps changing. First it was based on "inhumanity" now you are saying it is based on "opportunistic exploitation." I never felt this article was masquerading as anything other than the facts. It was and is a worldwide story involving many complex public policy issues such as international adoption (Russia shut down international adoption recently based in part on Masha's case), child pornography, incest and the failure of our government and child welfare system to protect children from predators. Now we have the first person convicted of child pornography in this country issuing a book which celebrates Masha's exploitation, Masha's second adoption has been questioned and there were two Congressional hearings involving this child and her circumstances. I consider that not only newsworthy but historical. JamesMarshLaw 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Mr. Marsh,

Thank you very much for protesting the deletion of this article. I think, though, that you need to let those users familiar with the rules of Wikipedia take the lead here ... it takes some time to learn, even for a lawyer.

I am really upset about this. I have been crying for a while. You put your heart into something like this and someone just takes it and breaks it. Wiki'dWitch 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki'dWitch, please take the lead and do whatever is necessary here. I always found your posts and edits on Masha uniquely informed. Let me know what I can do to help. I have many thoughts on how to proceed. Feel free to contact me in the "real world" by email or by whatever method you want. JamesMarshLaw 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)JamesMarshLaw

I'm logging off for tonight. I'm getting tired. Thank you. Wiki'dWitch 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by your request at Deletion Review, because if you have been editing it, surely you have a copy. DGG 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what the Wikimedia Foundation said: "Wikipedia is a site used by millions of users. Some of these users may have told you some things, indeed. However, we are not bound by what these users say. . . . [We] will not make a decision to insert content, or reinsert content. It is thus unnecessary to send further emails requesting this. Yours sincerely, David Monniaux" What a great democratic open source system this is. So much for "appealing to the Wikipedia Foundation as so many so-called administrator/editors told me to do. "Surely they will fix it" said Mr. Sandifer. Truly there is no one piloting this ship, no accountability and no democratic "community" process. Sandifer deletes and no one can restore or even debate the deletion. JamesMarshLaw 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New Information

I note two things:

(1) Justin Berry, a "pseudo-victim" with NO CONGRESSIONAL LAW, NO INVOLUNTARY FORCED TRAFFICKING into this country, and in many ways a perpetrator and phony, has re-appeared in Wikipedia, while Masha Allen, who testified in Congress and was the youngest victim of child pornography ever to go public AND has a major federal law named for her, has not. She continues to be victimized throughout the world in both print and film media. (Perhaps Kurt Eichenwald's recent desperate attempt to "rehabilitate" himself is the reason Wikipedia jumped back on the Berry bandwagon. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of this widely reported issue in Wikipedia).

(2) Almost immediately after the entry about Masha was deleted and the best sourced and most complete history of her life destroyed, Masha was taken into foster care (her third time in foster care in 10 years) but quickly released due to a lack of information about her situation. Was there a cover-up and concerted effort to erase Masha's past and keep her story hidden from those who want to help her? The timing of all of this is no coincidence. The Sotos Book, the Allen election and now the foster care cover up with Wikipedia an unwitting accomplish in the powerful effort to silence this teenage victim. JamesMarshLaw

Come on

I'm just saying imagine you are Masha Allen, do you want to be on wikipedia telling the whole story of how you were known as "the disney girl" to a bunch of perverts. I don't know, I think it should have been deleted for the girls sake. ( Stickstickley (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ) -but what do I know, I keep getting messages saying im going to get banned all the damn time.