User talk:Legalist

Hello, Legalist.

I'm afraid I couldn't work out your point at "Requests for Comment". Can you perhaps explain what you are getting at? You can answer here on this page, which is on my watchlist. I probably won't be able to help, myself, but at least I can try to point you to the right venue to raise your concerns. AndyJones 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

certainly, my apologies, that seemed to be the relevant page. the edits I have drawn attention to have all been secreted into articles ranging from the annhialation of the Tasmanian Aborigine to European and American court cases involving sexual matters. The editor, Mbarry, has also accessed sites involved with the Kenja Communication Group.

The group's leader faces 22 charges of sexual misconduct with two minors.

Thier defence appears to rely on declaring the charges part of a 'witchhunt'. The group has had an associate member produce a report which they are marketing as 'independent', which claims to examine 'the misuse of allegations of a sexual nature, and the ugly legal ramifications' involved. ( they did the same thing in a previous court case with a published book, 'Our Australian Freedoms are Under Threat', which was supposedly independent, but was also authored by Kenja members). the article is being secreted into wikipedia articles which involve historical injustices by the police, the courts and the media.

this appears to be a subversive move to give credibility to thier 'independent report', and help them build a credible case for being the subject of a 'witchhunt'. Thier strategy seems to be to draw various peoples attention to the articles, and having them draw comparisons with the groups contemporary situation, helping develop thier defence story. By enlarging the issue to make it a great injustice against society they hope to garner support from political quaters, as well as academic support and assistance from the genral community. They seem to present it to followers as proof of a 'conspiracy' to 'get' the group.

it seems to me there is no witch hunt, just two young girls bringing charges before the courts. But that is irrelevant, this seems to be a misuse of the encyclopedia, and introduces biased and slanted information into the site for personal gain.

as this group is a Scientology off shoot, with the leader being a Scientologist of 11 years standing, they should be treated witht the same respect for honesty as shown the Scientologists. ie; they should be allowed to present thier version of events, but it must be viewed with the material and information as published in the Australian Media, Parlimentary documentation and through articles written by leading Academics, which appear to have thier links removed in edits by 'MBarry'.I would appreciate your adviceLegalist 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, you seem to be dealing with the matter quite vigorously, it it looks as if none of the edits you object to are on the page any longer. If the dispute erupts we can put the matter onto RfC. For the moment, I think you are right to raise your concerns on the article's talk page. AndyJones 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andy, I have had the opportunity to read the pdf file which purports to be an independent report into 'child molestation charges'. the author is a criminologist, and seems to have prepared a hastily written paper for the group. It references an article embedded into the wikipedia site, as now do many other articles within wikipedia reference it. this appears to be thier marketing program. The fellow who embedded the links to the report also has tampered with kenja communication pages. The 'Kenja group' is described as a case study in the report, but it is in fact the final chapter in a series of misleading and clever PR exercise's which attempt to put the case that the group is unfairly targeted. there is very little research that has not been unearthed by the Kenja Group itself, and anyone familiar with thier defence strategies will find it all too familiar.Legalist 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting approach from present or previous kenja member trying to make contact

 * as a matter of interest, the following dialoge between the ex-member, (or present member), really appears to be an attempt to make contact by offering the bait of apparent information, never forthcoming. All dialoge was removed by randomz1234 after they realised that they would not be making contact.


 * it starts


 * Hello Legalist, I have information regarding Kenja that I cannot post here mostly for fear of exposing myself.


 * Perhaps I could allow user email communication for a short time? Random z 1234 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi random z 1234, this is simply a page which refers to verified and published documents. is your information of a personal nature? were you in kenja? I am happy to make contact though, your concern suggests a fear of Kenja people contacting you and harrasing you, am I right? Legalist (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)]]


 * Hi Legalist, yes you are correct, I fear contact and harassment. My information is generally of a personal nature which could not be published in the manner done so on this wiki page. Though I do have information which I intend to publish. My approach is slightly different to yours, I aim to detail the organisations processes, such as recruitment, fund raising, information and wealth distribution, etc. Random z 1234 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well r., you should always do that which you feel strongly about. how can I help? (Legalist (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC))


 * If you are interested in the events surrounding Rau you may wish to hear what I have to say. Whether it could be published and in what form is something to be discussed. Random z 1234 (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi R.I am not really sure how I can help. you need to establish your facts and go to the relevant authority. they will establish the truthfulness of your claims and decide to publish them if they are relevant. if you still want to contact me, let you me know. (Legalist (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Thats fine, I will contribute for your consideration what I can here when I can.Random z 1234 (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi R, I have popped all your deletes back up. I noticed you were deleting my enteries!. you have nothing to fear with the number of people being in the Kenja group, and bear in mind, you have not said you were in the group. you could be one of several million people interested in the Rau case, and kenja's involvment. Please leave the record here as a valid document.An 'eating slowly' removed all of thier discussion edits on another page relating to Dyers, (where they denied being a member or employed by the group), and did so on the afternoon of Dyers funeral. makes one wonder. (Legalist (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC))


 * and there it finished


 * Hiya, Legalist. I've checked the conversation above and it all seems pretty benign for a talk page frankly. Do you have and diffs that show otherwise. I think that a topic like this will invite all sorts from the woodwork to come and opine. I've left a welcoming message on 's talkpage explaining the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia. Cheers Fr33kman talk APW 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Message
 fr33k man  t -  c 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenja Communication
Hi Legalist! My concern about the Ken Dyers information in Kenja Communication is that the article isn't about Ken Dyers so much as the group, yet a large portion of the article was about Ken Dyers. There is a bit of a case for this, in that the life of Dyers is obviously closely related to Kenja, but as a rule it woudl be better to either have an article on Dyers or to limit the content about Dyers to only that related to Kenja. I'm more inclined towards the former option, but there will be some difficulties in that I think the Dyers content was a tad unbalanced as it stood. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, do you have any suggetsions. There is a public record that is not as compelling as the public proclamations. Certainly a mans war record is valid if it has been brought into the public domain, as is the record of High Court Judges, if it gives an accurate assesment of the findings, which seemed to be in dispute. Involvement in Scientology is not disputed, in fact none of the material is in dispute, it is the result of a reasonably vigorous round of editing that seemed to resolve when the documentation was presented. I suggest the content has found a balance, and it may be that the record is not so much biased, as accurate and reflective of that. If you read the SMH articles, they are fairly damning, as are the Telegraph's, but that could be expected. It is the Austraian Archives, Court Documents, and the ABC's efforts that give us a reasonable picture. (Legalist (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)