Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FloNight, FeloniousMonk, and Just zis Guy, you know? were emailed 50 pdf files with information about Larvatus legal dispute with the Zhu family. I asked for the records, so I plan on reviewing them. I'm not sure how they change the issues in this case, though. Past uncivility, POV edits, article ownership wouldn't change. Mostly, they will help decide future article content. If Larvatus and FeloniousMonk step back and let the Wikipedia community decide, we will make the right decision. Community consensus, in my book, is a key WP philosophy. --FloNight 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated on the project page, over the past two weeks, I have voluntarily and unilaterally recused myself from editing any articles related to my differences with WebEx and the Zhus. That said, your attempt to appoint yourself as an arbitrator of community consensus to the point of excluding editors that disagree with your position, is not supported by any standard of this community. You have no special prerogatives over me or FeloniousMonk. Larvatus 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Seeing that FloNight has unilaterally taken to censoring the Min Zhu article of relevant and necessary information [1] after having received the court files while refusing to give us the policy on which she bases her unilateral censorship [2], I have my doubts that "we (she) will make the right decision." I'll also point out that the shoe is on the other other foot when it comes to claims of article ownership now. The information FloNight insists on deleting [3], that Erin brought a formal complaint against her father for molestation, is factual and verifiable [4] (pg 24) and freely available to anyone as part of the public record. The particulars of the molestation were already long available publicly, having been published by Erin on the usenet in 1991 [5] and recounted more recently in an interview conducted by her attorney in the above-mentioned action taken against her father [6] (pg 36). This sort of unilateral censorship of relevant content necessary for a complete and accurate article under the guise of an ersatz victim's rights pseudo-policy while pointing the finger at others is not going to resolve issue. Factual, dispassionate reporting is. That's all I've asked for in this. FeloniousMonk 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF, Felonious. FloNight has cited a valid concern, even if we both think it is misplaced in this case. Also it's not IMO strictly true to say she brought a case for sexual abuse; she sued her father for money, alleging abuse among other things, but the alleged abuse was never prosecuted. The whole thing is very complex and murky, and bound up in some difficult interpersonal relationships. There does not seem to be a single party here who has not sued one of the others! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that I have decided not to edit Min Zhu for the duration of the arbitration committee case, just in case FeloniousMonk took my decision as acquiescence for the "consensus" to include Larvatus' allegations in the article. Similarly, many editors tend to avoid contentious articles involved in a current case of arbitration. So it's probably mistaken to place much stock in any "consensus" supposedly existing now, even if it does consist of three whole editors, and equally mistaken to try to censure FloNight for disagreeing with it. Demi T/C 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "LARVATUS"'S EDITS CHECK OUT

I am the original contributor of "controversial" content to the WebEx article ([7]). I vouch that Mr. Zeleny's edits on this subject are verified by court filings. I personally examined many volumes of these filings in the Los Angeles and Santa Clara courthouses from 2004 onwards. They are open to the public. Other editors can do what I did. I agree that "Larvatus"'s remarks in defense of his statements have often been borderline discourteous. However, the same applies to the "flash mob" participants that jumped on this case since last December. Assumptions of good faith should cut both ways. The "Zeleny/Zhu/WebEx" legal documents posted on Wikisource are a valuable disclosure of corporate wrongdoing. These documents are part of public record, but many of them are prohibitively priced. When I tried to get transcripts from court stenographers, they quoted fees in the range of thousands of dollars per complete copy. The proposed rule for excluding parties in lawsuits from contributing to Wikipedia articles about these lawsuits would deny access to these important documents to the Wikipedia community. It is against public interest to close Wikipedia to verifiable information about public controversies. Henryuzi 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)henryuzi

[edit] Mainstream media does not name rape victims

It is the policy of the mainstream media to shield the idenity of rape victims. For now, I request that Wikipedia redact the alleged child victims's name out of the text. See the sources below. --FloNight 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

From WP Rape Advocacy groups also argue for the preservation of the victim's privacy during the legal process; it is standard practice among mainstream American news media not to divulge the names of alleged rape victims in news reports.

Other sources

    • This is a gross overstatement of a controversial practice inapplicable in the instant matter:
Anonymity for rape victims... should the rules change? [8]
"Any justifiable guidelines for not naming the adult victims of sexual assault must rest on some reason other than the feelings of the victims. All victims of violent crimes feel violated and vulnerable.
Editors and news directors can protect themselves against charges of sexism and unfairness to criminal defendants by treating all victims of sexual assault alike. How would a male alleged victim of sexual assault be treated? Would his case come to trial and conviction without his identity being disclosed?
How are alleged rapists and their accusers treated in news stories concerning acquittal? If the justification for a no-name policy is to encourage victims to come forward with honest charges, perhaps public identification of accusers when charges are dismissed or the alleged assailant is found not guilty would discourage the bringing of false charges."
Naming Rape Victim in the Media: A Policy Statement by NAESV [9]
"Some people argue that journalists should identify victims of rape or sexual assault in news stories because they should be treated like any other crime victims. [...] Barring extraordinary circumstances, it is also the policy of this news organization not to publish the names of adults who come forward with allegations of sexual abuse or rape unless those individuals are willing to be named in the media." Erin Zhu has publicized her rape allegations against her father in Usenet postings signed with her Harvard university userid. [10]
Debate on Naming Rape Accusers Continues [11]
"Geneva Overholser, a veteran journalist and former board member, resigned when the institute's top brass insisted that the name of the young woman who accused basketball star Kobe Bryant of rape be excised from her weekly column. By moving into civil court, Overholser contended in her column, the accuser took a 'voluntary step further into the public limelight.'
'It is my view that it is standard practice in most media to name both plaintiff and defendant in a civil suit,' she told Women's eNews.
Overholser has been a vocal proponent of naming both the accuser and the accused in rape cases since 1989, when she served as editor of the Des Moines Register. The paper won the Pulitzer Prize in 1991 for its publication of a rape victim's personal story that included the victim's name with her consent. Overholser argues that the practice of suppressing the accuser's name only serves to strengthen the stigmatization of rape victims, the majority of whom are women."
Should the Media ID the Alleged Victim in the Kobe Bryant Sexual Assault Case? [12]
JUAN GONZALEZ: "You say in your article at one point, 'Surely the stigma attached to being accused of sexual assault is even worse than the stigma attached to being a victim of sexual assault. So why publish and broadcast his name and not hers.' Why do you believe that this policy has developed in the media?
DAVID SHAW: "Well because I think that there was a time when we didn't even talk about rape. When I started out in my career, you couldn’t even use the word 'rape' in a newspaper. We always called it a 'criminal assault.' Which is a legal term which does not connote exactly the horror of what has happened. And the specificity of what has happened. And we felt it was a sensitive and humanitarian thing to do to protect the woman from any kind of stigma, any indication, any implication that somehow she played a role in this. And I think that we've come a long way from that, I think we've come to realize now that the woman doesn't play a role, that it is not her fault, that it is entirely the fault of the perpetrator. And I think that by refusing to disclose her name we're just continuing that ages old and outdated, out-moded policy."
Larvatus 02:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

I think it's relevant to point out once again here that Erin Zhu herself published the particulars of her molestation long ago on usenet, in 1991: [13] FeloniousMonk 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_WebEx_and_Min_Zhu_Evidence_d8cd.html"