Talk:Galina Serin

From CaseyPedia

LossMitPro's account is long, but worthwhile because, damnit, he's *met* her. Is there anything in the CNet article that could also be brought in? Or in Duane's accounts?

Also needs sections on privacy -- the tensions between Casey's exhibitionisms and Galina's reported introversion (the long-time protection of even her name, the redacted bank statements, the recent decision (joint? Casey's?) to discuss her more openly on IAFF -- and on the recent ultimatums.

Could someone add LossMitPro? should be easy to find source material by searching recent EN posts, and by Googling on IAFF for "LossMitPro" and/or "loss mitigation"... --Lawnmower man 23:18, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Also, the whole religion thing

Which I have pointed out more than once, and I think is a contributor to the whole bizarre situation. To most of us in the US (and Europe) the notion that a wife would merely stand by is absurd. The religious background of most russian immigrants to the Sacto area makes this pretty normal behavior and is yet another reason Casey has had virtually no limits placed on him. As the husband, he's in charge and Galina expects to obey and follow. (note this unsigned comment was made by User:Btc --Lawnmower man 21:21, 26 May 2007 (CEST))

Steve didn't touch on the religion thing in his conversation with Casey, which one might expect if it were a significant factor in their lives. Nevertheless, after actually hearing Casey in action I am leaning a lot more towards Galina as victim not co-conspirator. I think we should rethink this whole article. Sprezzatura 19:15, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

I agree. It's worth noting that in the past week we've seen the only two real pieces of hard evidence about Galina's involvement (from LossMitPro and Steve), and both completely contradict the widespread assumption that she's in it up to the eyeballs. I genuinely think that her signature only appears on documents because Casey asked her to, with the promise of sweet deals just around the corner. (As I said on EN, I countersign documents to do with my wife's business all the time without asking too many questions) --Miguel

I don't fully agree: Galina clearly _was_ involved in the purchases, she _was_ involved in the seminars, and she _has_ enabled Casey by (until recently) supporting his actions. She's in it. The real question is: willing co-conspirator, or dutiful wife? All the evidence suggests that both Galina's and Casey's families have very traditional views on gender roles: for example, Steve's "provide and protect" priorities, the clear handoff of responsibility for Galina's college bills from her father to Casey when they married. As Miguel and the original (unsigned) comment above say, Galina may simply have followed Casey because that's her expected role. --Lawnmower man 21:19, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

Note also that Galina may well also be a victim of Casey's speculated mental illness. Very clearly speculation is all we have here, but both bipolar and NPD sufferers can be hellish partners. --Lawnmower man 21:19, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Family background

In light of Steve's concerns on how this is affecting his family, would it be politic to remove the names of Galina's other family members? Could be argued that her parents _are_ involved in the saga, given that Casey said (in talkcast) that they were witnesses to the Agreement. --Lawnmower man 21:37, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

Someone claiming to be Galina posted to EN today requesting removal (twice) of the names of Galina's parents. May or may not be the real deal, but in any case: I see no benefit in publishing the names of Galina's uninvolved relatives. Deleted.

In general, I think we should adopt a one-degree-of-separation policy in naming names: ie, those directly involved with Casey are fair game. Those involved only through a relationship with a player: off limits. (For example also: Nigel, fair game. Nigel's wife: off limits. Nigel's boss occupies a bit of a gray area as the recipient of unfounded speculation...) --Lawnmower man 07:41, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

I'm with lawnmower man. I mean how far to we plan to go? High school friends who have nothing to do with this? Grandparents? Other relatives? I think direct involvement in some aspect of this is a good general policy. We can discuss those few gray areas. In the case of Nigel's boss, the impression I've gotten is that he and Nigel's other key associates think this is incredibly funny and aren't offended, so I tend to think it's OK to leave them. If he complained, I'd have to think about rewriting to mention an unnamed boss. --btc 08:05, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

It appears that Galina is particularly concerned about her mom's birthdate showing up. Any way we can expunge that from the history? Personally, given identity theft and other credit issues (something Galina is probably well aware of by now), I think it's probably unwise to include these for the peripheral characters, even when they are mentioned.

--btc 08:19, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Am also in agreement. From Galina's comments, I think the best course of action is to make history + diffs only viewable to logged in users. These discussion pages should probably also be "hidden" from the public. Currently, when logged out, I can't see history of an article, but I can go to Special:Recent changes and view the diffs. I think making the namespaces Talk: and Special: inaccessible to outside viewers should do the trick. I posted a few links about how to do this earlier on Talk:Sharky_Laguana/Feedback. --NotAnOptimist 08:25, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

The 'history' function has been accessible only to logged-in users almost from the start (I thought something like this might happen). I'll have another go at sorting out the other stuff today (though I've just woken up from an all-nighter - damn clients in Asia suddenly decided they needed something doing urgently by yesterday - which was possible due to time zone differences ;-) --NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 08:58, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

OK, sorry. Just checked it to make sure. Somebody posted a link that made it look like they could see the older history. Is somebody with access here trolling a bit? --btc 09:05, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

they presumably got the link from Special:Recentchanges. Anyway, I've fixed it so that old versions / diffs are also only visible to logged-in users.--NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 09:20, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Major rewrite will be needed now!

Abandoned, apparently not really complicit... sheesh poor woman.--Pmspms 17:47, 11 June 2007 (CEST)

I suspect there's more news to come. --Lawnmower man 18:40, 11 June 2007 (CEST)

I've added info about the separation. Am thinking about how else this article might be changed to change the tone a little yet not rewrite history. --Sprezzatura 22:04, 4 July 2007 (CEST)