Talk:Aline Marie Massel

From WikiAlpha
Revision as of 23:03, 31 January 2019 by Geo Swan (Talk | contribs) (Here is a link to NY Judge Yaffe's ruling...)

Jump to: navigation, search

User:Omega Mind made a huge informationectomy to this article with the misleading edit summary "add balance". They followed it with a small addition of a paragraph about a recent step in Ms Massel's ongoing dispute with Mr Gibbins. That addition was an unbalanced one sentence summary of the reference it added.

I voiced my concern on User talk:Omega Mind. In that comment I asked Omega Mind, whose only edits here have been focussed around the Massel/Gibbins dispute, whether their edits here would be in violation of the Wikipedia's rules on conflict of interest. In their reply they replied by saying "The only issue at hand here is what content is appropriate for a WikiAlpha article."

I am going to interpret that as a tacit acknowledgement that Omega Mind is closely associated with Gibbins.

They went on to say:

  1. "The fact is that the British courts found Massel guilty of defrauding and extorting Gibbins, and that her outlandish claims had no basis in fact.
  2. "So why would you insist on keeping in all that content that was shown in court to be false?
  3. "It may be accurate that Massel made those false claims, but it's irresponsible to use WikiAlpha as a platform for them - especially with no caveat about their fraudulence.

I am not aware of any content disputes on wikialpha in the past.

I don't think the sentence you added, "A London court also found that Massel lied to and defrauded Gibbins in her attempts to extort him..." referencing the following New York Daily News article, is a fair or neutral summary.

That article says:

  1. "Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe tossed Massel’s lawsuit against Autonomy Capital CEO Robert Charles Gibbins late Wednesday because the woman’s claims had already been rejected by a UK judge..."
  2. "Justice Jaffe found that “she does not show that she attempted to seek appropriate relief from the British court and offers no authority for the proposition that she is entitled to relief via a collateral attack” in the New York court..."
  3. "In March, a British judge determined that Massel’s STD claims were not credible because she never submitted medical tests proving the allegation..."
  4. "Eddie Hayes, Massel’s attorney, said, “Women are at a terrible disadvantage in England because the proceedings are secret and usually only the man can pay the legal fees..."

I think your one sentence summary is focussed solely on, and misinterpreting paragraph number 1.

The article you referenced does not to repeat your phrase, establish that the UK court "...found that Massel lied to and defrauded Gibbins..." Rather, the article says the UK court determined that Massel failed to document, and thus couldn't prove, that Gibbins made extravagant promises, and that Massel didn't have documentary evidence of an STD infection. This is not equivalent to finding she lied, or tried to defraud Gibbins.

The second numbered paragraph, above? It is a reflection of a broad legal principle. Courts generally won't consider a case when another court, or tribunal, has already taken that case up. I live in a housing coop. Where I live there are special laws that apply to housing coops, that establish that, when a member has a dispute with the board, they can establish a tribunal, conducted by trusted uninvolved individuals from the broader community. When two of the coops I lived in had disputes, and the disputants threatened to go to the Human Rights Commission, or to court. By initiating those less formal tribunals my coops gave the tribunals jurisdiction, so the courts, or Human Rights Commission would conclude they did not have jurisdiction. The conclusion you included in your one sentence summary implied that the NY court was endorsing the UK court's conclusions. I suggest what the NY court was actually saying is that rather than try to initiate a parallel case in NY Massel should instead appeal the UK ruling to a higher court, in the UK. I suggest this is not an endorsement, it is an explanation as to why the NY court concluded it did not have jurisdiction.

The fourth numbered paragraph, above? Your one sentence summary does not reflect it, at all.

You wrote:

  1. I would be happy to work together with you in good faith to reach a consensus on this.
  2. But it would be completely inappropriate to keep the article on Massel as it stands now.

With regard to good faith, in wikipedia terms yours would be a "single purpose account", as all your edits are focused on the Massel/Gibbins dispute. Rich guys hire shills, professional image laundering firms, to launder wikipedia articles that accurately cover embarrassing details about their lives. After a lot of discussion some image consultants have gone on record that they will comply with some transparency rules on the English language wikipedia. Other rogue firms continue to establish wiki-IDs that they pretend are ordinary contributors, which they use to covertly sanitize their client's articles. They even dumb down their talk page comments, making spelling errors, to appear more like ordinary joes and jills.

So I am going to ask, again, for you to be open about your relationship with Gibbins.

Further, it would go a long way to establishing that you can be trusted, if you acknowedged the weaknesses I outlined, above, in your two recent edits.

With regard to appropriateness or inappropriateness of the article's current contents... You have called upon us to follow wikipedia policies and conventions, but, it seems to me that you have been cherry-picking. Over on the wikipedia contributors are not supposed to insert their own opinion. Opinions are supposed to come from reliable sources.

That the UK court ruled that "...that Massel lied to and defrauded Gibbins..."? This is YOUR personal opinion, not the opinion of all the reliable sources. I don't believe it is even the opinion expressed by Molly Crane-Newman, the author of the one new reference you added. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here are links to NY Judge Yaffe's ruling...

Here is a link to NY Judge Yaffe's ruling, which I believe backs up my interpretation of what the ruling said about jurisdiction. Geo Swan (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. 2018-03-18
  2. 2018-11-15

Using wikipedia policies Yaffe's ruling would be a "primary source". On the wikipedia BLP proponents would assert it shouldn't be used, at all.

What does Yaffe's document say, that wasn't mentioned in the NY Post article?

  1. Gibbins tried, and failed, to have the case sealed. Yaffe agreed, in her 2018-03-18 ruling, with Massel's lawyers that the information was already in the public domain.
  2. Gibbins filed his civil suit against Massel when Massel was in a mental institution. Her doctor "thus opined that from October to December 2017, and in the months before her treatment, plaintiff was unable to 'protect her legal rights in any way.' Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)