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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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.