Talk:WebEx/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Proposed Expansion and Documentation of Min Zhu/Michael Zeleny controversy

The following text is fully supported by the evidence posted on Wikisource ([1]) and the embedded links:

On 13 May 2005, WebEx announced that Min Zhu was stepping down as WebEx's CTO and WebEx leadership, and retiring to mainland China where he would serve as a "WebEx Fellow" ([2], [3]). This announcement followed a public protest staged by Michael Zeleny at the WebEx User Conference on May 2 of 2005. WebEx shut down its conference on May 3 of 2005, citing security concerns in connection with Zeleny's protest ([4]). As a former business partner of WebEx and the Zhus, Zeleny sued them in December of 2001 for breaches of contract and various business torts. These lawsuits were settled out of court in October of 2004 ([5]). Zeleny alleges ([6], [7], [8]) that Zhu retired in direct response to the publicity surrounding his daughter's allegations of child rape and Zeleny's allegations that WebEx covered up Min Zhu's child rape of his daughter. WebEx sued Zeleny for libel and various business torts in connection with his claim of corporate child rape coverup. Following two judicial sanctions against it for bad faith pleadings and Zeleny's assertion of the defense of truth, WebEx withdrew its lawsuit against him.

Please discuss. Larvatus 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Larvatus, lets discuss it.
On 13 May 2005, WebEx announced that Min Zhu was stepping down as WebEx's CTO and WebEx leadership, and retiring to mainland China where he would serve as a "WebEx Fellow"
([9], [10]).
(fine by me.)
Much of the rest of the content could go in if the tone and style was encyclopedic. Needs to be more concise. But nothing about rape! --FloNight 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Should we move this discussion to the bottom?--FloNight 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Let the discussion stay here. It pertains to the most crucial outstanding issue in editing this article. I welcome any attempts at stylistic improvements. The rape allegation made by Erin Zhu against Min Zhu has been verified from her draft complaint and interview notes filed in Santa Clara court in connection with the referenced litigation. Copies of these filings have been posted on Wikisource [11]. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your refusal to incorporate this relevant and properly verified information in the WebEx article. Larvatus 03:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Zeleny having made public Erin's claim of being molested by her father is central to a complete understanding of specifically why Min Zhu stepped down. Not only is it factual, but it is relevant, and Wikipedia should not facilitate any corporate coverup that may exist, and for which there is evidence. As far as how to fairly present it in the article, I personally prefer the term "childhood molestation" to "child rape." FeloniousMonk 06:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I favor plain talk. If you prefer to euphemize lurid reality, I suggest "childhood sexual abuse". This has the merit of capturing both the original complaint and the sworn testimony. Larvatus 10:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
I favour accuracy. Erin Zhu specifically refuses to use the word rape. But no, this is not crucial to understanding why Zhu stepped down, it's part of the reason for your vendetta against him; as far as I can tell the reason for steppign down is largely your vendetta, since no law-enforcement agencies were apparently interested in the abuse claim. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read Erin Zhu's draft complaint against Min Zhu and the interview notes that served as its basis? Do you have a problem with including an accurate factual report of their content? Larvatus 12:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
As previously stated, yes I have. I have also read the subsequent sworn statement in which she specifically recants the allegation of rape, will not be pressed on abuse, and admits she lied to you (and by extension Affeld, given the contents of those interviews, which were not sworn statements) about it. You need to take a step back and let others sort this out especially since not only are you not a reliable source in respect of either Min Zhu or WebEx, but you are also knwon to have an agenda against the subjects of two articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As stated elsewhere, I have stepped back of my own will. But your instant suggestion to this effect, compounded by your erstwhile expression of the wish to keep me "off" certain articles, stands in direct contravention of the main premiss of Wikipedia editorial policies. I have bent over backwards to supply you with copies of materials in public record. Pursuant to our prior agreement, I expect you to verify every relevant aspect of the events, including Erin Zhu's presentation of detailed rape allegations to Min Zhu, and her partial retraction thereof in subsequent deposition. Can you do that? Larvatus 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Suggesting that someone not edit articles in which they have a strong vested interest is scarcely controversial. And if you read WP:AGF you will see that it says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Which, in the context of you and anything related to Min Zhu, is beyond dispute, as evidence your consistent use of the word "rape" despite sworn testimony to the effect that no rape took place, and that allegations of rape made to you and Affeld were a fabrication. At this point I say wait for arbcom. - JzG 12:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
All I am saying is what you already confirmed: Erin Zhu first alleged full-blown rape for the purposes of making a legal claim, then amended her allegation to "molestation" short of intercourse in deposition. What exactly do you see as evidencing my bad faith in this account? Please bear in mind that the rape allegations in the draft complaint filed as exhibits in my pleadings are much more readily accessible to the general public than deposition transcripts maintained by court reporters. I supplied you with both pieces of evidence in the interests of making a full disclosure, contrary to your insinuation that I am trying to falsify the record. Once again, pursuant to our agreement, I am seeking consensus independent of arbitration. If you prefer to use a generic term like "childhood sexual abuse", that will work for me. Larvatus 13:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
No, what you are doing is using her original statement and not the substantially toned-down version; and given the actual text of the toned-down version there is some question over how reliable any of it is; constantly restating your position is not going to inform my view of the case in any way, only my own reading of the documentation will do that. To answer your specific question, the terminology Erin uses is, I believe "molestation" (with out the loaded word "childhood", which is questionable in the case of an adolescent). But like I say, I'm waiting for the ArbCom ruling now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Top priority discussion at top of page, sure.--FloNight 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Min Zhu Controversy content

64.68.115.166 unexplainedly deleted this entire subsection. Considering 64.68.115.166's edit history, it appears that this user is likely a member of or acting on behalf of WebEx management. This deletion, taken with Yahoo!'s removal of Zeleny's posts there and Google's dropping of this wikipedia Webex article from its search results, seems to prove Zeleny's assertions that WebEx management is actively trying to surpress this information, which I'm now restoring. This pattern of WebEx manipulating information sources is worthy of inclusion in the article as well, and I'll be adding a paragraph on that soon. Henryuzi 29 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)

IP Whois ([12]) identifies the IP address 64.68.115.166 as belonging to WebEx Inc. This identification witnesses the fact of ongoing coverup of Min Zhu's child rape by WebEx. Larvatus 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
As the standard email disclaimer says, "opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company". Enough said. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Most of the discussion of the court case on the main page is totally irrelevant. In my opinion it should be moved off of the main WebEx page and onto some other page, like WebEx Controversies, or something along those lines. And no, I don't work for WebEx. Markkawika 07:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems pretty relevant to me. WebEx, a publicly-traded company, whose founder, being in a position of public trust, was sued by his daughter for molestation and by business partners for breech and torts and is accused of self-dealing. Then the company appears to engage in cover up. I'm pretty certain many shareholders would think that's relevant. Especially since the information relates directly to Zhu's fitness to serve (something born out by his departure) and is not available from the company. Moving it to a sub-article is called dissembling, something the article contends the company is trying to do. I see no legitimate reason to help them. You're not related to the company in any way are you? ;-) Also, Dennis Kozlowski and Mark H. Swartz feature prominently in the Tyco article. FeloniousMonk 07:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I am not in any way related to the company. I am simply a Wikipedia fan who is disturbed the removal of the NPOV tag from the main page and the mounds of irrelevant lawsuit information on the main page. Look, I support your right to disseminate this information. I just happen to believe that putting it on the main WebEx page is inappropriate. Please consider moving it to a separate page and linking it from the main page. The whole discussion violates the principles of NPOV.
And please do not delete the NPOV tag without further discussion here, on the Discussion page. That's what the tag is for: to promote discussion. Markkawika 00:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

...

Okay, I've thought further about what you said, and I guess I don't have that strong of an opinion. I'm not going to put the POV tag back on the page, but I still think the information is irrelevant. There seems to be a whole lot of nit-picky information in the section called "Min Zhu Controversy" that doesn't really belong on a main Wikipedia article about a company. Yahoo deleted id "foo", and it looks like IP "bar" is editing the main page, etc. Does that really need to be on the main article? Can we summarize it a little by saying something like the company appears to be engaging in an apparent cover-up over the details of the affair? Markkawika 01:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2004 Personnel distribution

for incorporation when more content is available to provide context Courtland 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:2004 WebExCom PersonnelDistribution.png

TotallyDisputed vs. POV

It was COMPLETELY out of line for {{TotallyDisputed}} to be added to this article. Such a template implies that there is NOTHING in the article that is verifiably neutral or verifiably true ... which is not the case. I've replaced the strong template with a section-POV template, which I'd suggest leaving in place in order to address the various counterproductive edits that have happened here.

I would actually suggest that a new article be created that deals specifically with the Zhu issue as the resolution of this issue, it's veracity, content, and verifiability have NO IMPACT on the factual accuracy of what WebEx is as a company, what it does, it's relationship to competitors, and it's place in the consumer landscape. Continued debate over the Zhu issue in the context of the WebEx company article undermines this article to the point of undermining the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

P.S. as this is apparently an issue regarding this article, I will confirm that a) I am not an employee or (knowing) investor in WebEx and b) though I've used the application(s), I'm not a major fan of the company's products. My actions are Wikipedia-oriented and not WebEx-oriented.

Regards, Courtland 13:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

New article for the Min Zhu controversy? That's called dissembling, and is what WebEx is alleged of doing. I see no reason why Wikipedia should them. The information in the section is backed up by the evidence the article links to, namely, the records of the court filings. The transcripts are also available for anyone to get at the court house. I plan on getting my own copies next time I'm in San Jose. The information in the relevent, as I described above. As such, the NPOV template was unjustified -- I've taken it down. FeloniousMonk 15:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You believe that the Min Zhu controversy is the most important thing that people need to know about WebEx, then, yes? I do not appreciate being essentially told that adding an article while preserving content is tantamount to the unexplained deletion mentioned at the top of this talk page, also. Courtland 04:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Incerdently how does the last section of this article fit in with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and WP:NOR?Geni 05:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The question of self-references is a non sequitur: Zeleny/Lavartus has edited this article very little according to its history. No more than WebEx staff has. And I don't see how it could be original research: The account in the article appears to be backed up by ample outside evidence. The Santa Clara County Superior Court records support the account [13]. Clicking on the case numbers gives the details for each case. Same is true for the Los Angeles Superior Court [14]. Reading the usenet postings of Erin Zhu [15], it does appear that she publicly accused her father of molestation long before the Zeleny court cases. I'd say the account given here is well-supported enough to be considered factual. And it's relevant as it addresses the fitness of the management of a public company. Shareholders have a right and need for full disclosure. Since it appears that the company indeed is suppressing the story as this article alleges and its history attests, it's all the more important that it be preserved and made available. My apologies to Ceyockey. It's just that moving content into a separate article will make it less likely readers not familiar with Wikipedia, like WebEx shareholders arriving here through a search, will find the content. Bifurcation is a common method for mitigation. FeloniousMonk 07:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the last sentence altogether. It is obviously unverifiable speculation or original research to claim WebEx management condones Wikipedia vandalism when there is no external source for such allegations. Webex has over 1800 employees, who knows how many of them have visited this article on their own? I tried to re-phrase the self-referential sentence more in line with Wikipedia:avoid self-references. This whole thing still needs to be condensed fairly much and all the irrelevancies to be removed. jni 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Content removed from the article

According to court filings and public records, Erin Zhu, daughter of WebEx co-founder and former Director, President, and Chief Technical Officer Min Zhu, formed a business partnership with Michael Zeleny lasting from January 1995 to January 2000 known variously as LiveShare Inc. and PTYX. Zeleny claims that this partnership provided professional services to WebEx. It is further alleged by Zeleny that in 1999 LiveShare entered into an agreement with WebEx, and that in January 2000 WebEx reneged on this agreement. Zeleny also claims that at the same time, Erin Zhu made a claim for childhood sexual abuse against Min Zhu [16], which was settled out of court.

In January 2001, WebEx delivered to Erin Zhu 5,000 shares of its stock, apparently as part of the out of court settlement. At that time, WebEx owed 5,000 shares of its stock to PTYX, of which Erin was a partner. Erin soon thereafter abandoned the partnership with Zeleny and married Blixa Bargeld of the German band Einstürzende Neubauten, taking the 5000 shares of stock with her. Zeleny attempted to communicate with WebEx to recover this company asset and was rebuffed. He alleges that this was followed by anonymous threats being made on his life around the end of 2001 in the names of Min Zhu and WebEx. In response to these threats, Zeleny filed a lawsuit against WebEx. In July 2002 Zeleny’s lawsuit was transferred from Los Angeles to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (case number CV809286). Zeleny named WebEx, Min Zhu, his daughter Erin Zhu, and his wife Susan Xu as defendants for breach of contract and various torts.

In October 2004, the defendants settled Zeleny's claims before the trial. The settlement terms remain under seal. Beginning in June 2004 Zeleny made public on the Yahoo! Finance WebEx message board the particulars of his lawsuit against the Zhus and WebEx, which included reference to the allegations of rape made against Min Zhu by his daughter, Erin. Zeleny made these postings under the Yahoo! username "ptyx". The posts remained accessible to the public until February 2005, at which time Yahoo! management closed the ptyx user account and removed all related postings. The same month Zeleny reappeared on the message board as "helicalenzyme" and continued posting updates of the legal proceedings and particulars of the cases. Zeleny justified this move by asserting that the issues are a matter of public interest. He notes that Min Zhu was serving in a position of trust as a senior executive of a publicly traded company, and has been accused of molestation in sworn testimony by his own daughter. By compounding the use of WebEx assets for hush money with employing WebEx corporate counsel to defend himself in the lawsuit and accuse Zeleny of libel, Zhu has confirmed the self-dealing Zeleny alleged.

In response to Zeleny's posts on the Yahoo! Finance WebEx messageboard, in July 2004 a suit for business tort, unfair practice was filed by WebEx naming Zeleny as defendant in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (case number CV-024062). Zeleny's response was to allege that WebEx had knowingly filed in the wrong venue, pointing out that WebEx had relied on the principle that venue in a tort claim lies with the defendant's residence, in successfully moving for a change in venue of his own actions against it from Los Angeles to Santa Clara.

Zeleny responded with a motion for change of venue to Los Angeles. WebEx refused to stipulate to the change of venue, and Zeleny argued that this showed that WebEx was attempting to harass Zeleny into silence with bad faith pleadings. The motion for change of venue was granted and the case was transferred to Los Angeles Superior Court (case number BC324927). WebEx was ordered to pay Zeleny's attorney's fees. Zeleny followed this by filing an "anti-SLAPP" motion, in which he claimed that WebEx's suit was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), a form of bad faith pleading. Again, the court ruled for Zeleny on two out of three causes of action in the defamation suit, and WebEx was once again ordered to reimburse Zeleny for his attorney's fees. Since the courts ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion, there has been no adjudication of the remaining cause of action in the defamation suit. Notably, in his declarations attached to the filings in that case, Min Zhu has refused to contest Zeleny's allegations concerning his rape of his daughter. WebEx describes its case against Zeleny as "narrowly tailored" to avoid this subject matter, in favor of contesting Zeleny's allegations of self-dealing by Min Zhu.

In November 2004, WebEx co-founder and executive Min Zhu stepped down as WebEx President and Director, though he continued to serve as WebEx CTO. [17]

Zeleny picketed the annual WebEx Experience User Conference held at the Westin St. Francis hotel in San Francisco held on 2–3 May 2005. During the picketing, a Russian rifle was discovered in Zeleny's car. The San Francisco Police Department briefly detained Zeleny. He was released after several hours when it had been determined that the weapons in his possession were legal and that he had made no threats to use them. The following morning, 3 May 2005, WebEx management announced that it was canceling the conference due to concerns over the safety of its customers and that it would reimburse attendees their fees.

On 13 May 2005, WebEx announced that Min Zhu was stepping down as WebEx's CTO and WebEx leadership, and retiring to mainland China where he would serve as a "WebEx Fellow." [18] [19] [20] Zeleny claims that Min Zhu retired in response to the publicity surrounding his daughter's allegations of child rape. [21]

Recent events bolster the allegation that WebEx management is actively trying to suppress the details of the Min Zhu controversy from the public and its customers as part of a cover up of the controversy surrounding Min Zhu. Apparently at the behest of WebEx management, Yahoo! closed Zeleny's ptyx Yahoo! account and removed all related postings from the Yahoo! Finance WEBX message board. Further, within three weeks of online encyclopedia Wikipedia mentioning the Min Zhu allegations, Google suddenly removed the Wikipedia article in question from its search results.

-- FeloniousMonk 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Min Zhu/Zeleny controversy content remaining here

The Min Zhu/Zeleny controversy content is necessary and relevant to understanding why WebEx's founder and CTO stepped down. That a founder and officer of a publicly traded company is accused by his daughter of molestation and is forced to resign his position of public trust is a matter of concern to both the public and shareholders. That WebEx management is active in surpressing and spinning the story only adds to why it's necessary to include both sides here. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There are no external sources which support the assertion that he stepped down for that reason. We have only Zeleny's assertion, which is not supported by any external source, let alone any deposition. The only thing that is verifiable is that he protested his dispute with Zhu outside a User Conference and caused that conference's cancellation. You are engaging in the correlation implies causation fallacy. We cannot create a link where there is none. You have no sources to support your accusation that he was "forced to resign." There are no "both sides" - we have one guy's blog, and *nothing* else. That's not a side, that's a fringe POV. Unless you have any verifiable sources to support your accusation that he was forced to resign, I suggest you remove it. This identical content does not belong in two places - the dispute is over Zeleny's accusations about Zhu, and hence it belongs on the page for Mr. Zhu that Zeleny himself created. FCYTravis 22:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The content of the "Zhu/Zeleny controversy" has been established by numerous editors working from verifiable and verified sources, with your prominent participation. Thus you have no reason to question its verification. Larvatus 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
      • The relevant content has been moved to Min Zhu where it belongs, as you acknowledge the dispute is between yourself and Mr. Zhu. Retaining an identical paragraph in a second article is pointless. It should be pared down and directed to Mr. Zhu's article - which you, yourself created. FCYTravis 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I acknowledge no such thing. Min Zhu is a daughter rapist, whereas WebEx is his accessory after the fact. Their roles in this affair are distinct, and only partially interdependent. They must be covered separately. My partnership was with WebEx, not with Min Zhu. It was agreed upon by Subrah Iyar, not Min Zhu. WebEx was a named defendant in my lawsuit, settled last year. WebEx sued me for alleging that they covered up Min Zhu's rape of his daughter. Min Zhu was not a party to that lawsuit. Neither WebEx nor Min Zhu brought up any claims against me for alleging the fact of Min Zhu's rape of his daughter. Last Friday, WebEx agreed to drop its lawsuit after having been sanctioned twice for bad faith pleadings. This is a WebEx controversy, first and foremost. Pursuant to our earlier discussions, I trust that you understand how to verify this claim without leaving your come. I will be amending this article accordingly.
        • In a related matter, WP:NOR allows in part that research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The same article counts historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview as legitimate primary sources for incorporation in source-based research. Do you have a problem with this Wikipedia policy statement? If so, what is it? If not, do you have any problem with citing court records, Usenet postings, private correspondence, civil complaints, responsive pleadings, and interview transcripts, officially authenticated by their creators, in source-based research? Further, would you be satisfied in your concern that "these allegations have as yet not been reported by any reputable independent sources", by my enabling an impartial third party to upload these materials to Wikisource? If not, why not? Larvatus 01:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Zeleny's lawsuits name WebEx specifically [22]. WebEx in turn filed a counter-claim against Zeleny. Those facts alone make the information relevant to this article. Attempts to move it are obvious POV forks that only serve to bowdlerize this article. Accuracy and completeness demand that both sides of the controversy be presented here per WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence available which links Zhu's departure to Zeleny's accusations. Attempts to link it without clear sourcing are prima facie POV use of the logical fallacy of correlation and causation. We can say that Zeleny alleges it, but we can't say that "amid controversy" he left. That's clearly weasel wording. FCYTravis 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed content duplicated in Min Zhu, it is simply not relevant to WebEx. It is enough to sate that Zhu's departure followed Zeleny's lawsuits and demonstrations. Nothing further is relevant to the company itself, which is a respected company with a worldwide presence. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Verifiable factual records bear out Min Zhu's resignation and departure ten days after my protest of WebEx's corporate coverup of his rape of Erin Zhu, as attested and witnessed here: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Does FCYTravis have a problem with reporting these relevant facts without any conclusory commentary? Furthermore, as explained above [28], WebEx is a named party in the referenced controversy. Does Just zis  Guy, you know? have a problem with WP:NPOV ruling out his preferential treatment accorded to "a respected company with a worldwide presence"? Larvatus 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
If you bothered to look, the text as I left it said precisely what can be verified from reliable sources, namely that Zhu left following protests at the WebEx user conference and the lawsuit involving you. There is reliable evidence for the lawsuit, for the fact of your having alleged abuse (which belongs in Min Zhu since nobody is claiming that WebEx engaged in sexual abuse), and for... nothign else. There are still no reliable reports to substantiate the existence fo your allegation other than as a means to prosecute your acknowledged agenda against Zhu. This is not "preferential treatment", it is the correct and usual placing of the burden of proof on the accuser. You will note that where I could have said an armed demonstration by Zeleny, following which he was arrested, I did not: the only source I have for that is a blog. And blogs are explicitly disallowed as sources, as you know. As I have said several times now, all you have to do is cite police reports, reports in national newspapers, or some other reliable source to support the allegation, and it can go in. Why do you consistently refuse to do this, preferring instead to pretend that your acknowledged dispute with Zhu somehow makes your blog, uniquely, a reliable source? Mixing links to your blog in with (in some cases only slightly) more reliable sources which don't actually address the subject of your allegations at all does not make you a reliable source. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Responded below under a separate caption. Larvatus 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Blogs Are Allowed as Primary Sources

Per WP:RS, A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. Since that is the case in the matter of reporting Zeleny's allegations of WebEx's coverup of Min Zhu's rape of his daughter and other relevant parts of his controversy with WebEx, Just zis  Guy, you know? is mistaken in editing out links to Zeleny's blogs. Larvatus 23:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

But you aren't. You are writing about Min Zhu. Your blog could be used as a source in an article about you, if there was one, but not in an article about anybody else. As it says, clearly and unabiguously, in WP:RS. Now stop arguing the toss about nuances of interpretation of policy and get on with posting links to verifiable external sources for your claim. News reports in the press (of the abuse, not of your allegaiton of it); police reports; federal wanted ads; anything (per WP:RS anyway). It defies belief that any person could commit the crime of which you accuse Zhu without attracting any official attention whatsoever. So cite it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you are right about this. WP:RS never says that a person's blog may be used only in an article dedicated to that person. It says "blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject." . The WebEx article writes about Zeleny, hence his blog is an OK primary source for that article. --Pierremenard 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


To each their own interpretation. I'm not totally aware of the situation but this looks like a blatent attempt to use wiki rules into misleading the unknowlegble. That is bad. I would sugest, even though you might have done this by accident, that you appologize and in the future try not to warp wiki rules by quoting halft of the rule. (I am making reference to your inadequacy to add 3 little dotes at the end, like this...) Anyone joining in on the conversation should read the entire section WP:RS#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet. As for the afformentioned erronious quote, it should state: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source..." the rest of the quote is, "...i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website.". Further down, it is indicate that:
"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."
Assides from my possible lack of "good faith," in your ability to properly leave a good quote, I wish you all best of luck in your wikipedia edit/opinion war. Cheers! --CylePat 00:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing in the quotes that you have given that is not present in my original quote. --Pierremenard 02:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I understand whats the matter: you are upset at my cropping the sentence after "subject." Anyone reading this thread would have read before Larvatus' comment which quoted the sentence at length, and the reply to it. It ought to be clear that subject here is Zeleny, who is also the owner of the website. --Pierremenard 02:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I might have acted hastelly in my lack of "good faith", I'm sorry. Thank you for the clarification. As I indicated, I believe your quote was lacking. Now, let's not lose track of the subject. We are talking about placing contreversial material correct? That is from a blog about the owner of that blog? I think you said yes to that! (Like I said, I have limited knowlege on the subject mater) No matter the case, my belief is that of the issue at hand should fall under the test of the afformentioned "bold texted" quote. "Personal websites and blogs may never..." Again, sorry about my lack of "good faith" and Cheers! --CylePat 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your retraction.
The subject matter is as follows. Just zis Guy, you know said, speaking to Larvatus: "Your blog could be used as a source in an article about you, if there was one, but not in an article about anybody else." I think this is wrong - at least, I don't see how it follows from WP:RS. As long as Larvatus' blog is being used as a source for Larvatus' allegations, it doesn't matter that the article is about WebEx. --Pierremenard 03:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Read WP:RS. It starts by saying: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. (in bold). It then goes on to say: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." - note the strong caveats. Zeleny is relying on the weak "allowed when discussing the blogger" to override the strong "not allowed as primary or secondary source". These allegations are not about Zeleny, as the weak second sentence would permit, they are about someone else, so the strong (and repeated in other places) not allowed unquestionably applies. The most we can say is that Zeleny has made these allegations. Anythign more and we are straying into very dangerous territory. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You claim: "These allegations are not about Zeleny, as the weak second sentence would permit....". That may be so - however,the sentence "Zeleny alleges X" (whatever X is) is about Zeleny, and hence ought to be allowed under the weak second sentence. --Pierremenard 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That is what it currently says in the Min Zhu article. The substance of Zeleny's accusations does not appear to em to be relevant to the company he worked for, at however senior a level. Nobody is suggesting that WebEx raped anyone. There is a link direct to the relevant section in Min Zhu in the section here. Just for completeness, are you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence? You may feel motivated to take part in that process, as an active editor in these articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
WebEx is a publicly-traded company and the fitness of its officers to serve in a position of trust is a matter of public interest, not only to its shareholders, but to our readers, many of which may be potential investors and customers. And among this latter group will be those performing due diligence. The fact that one of it's officers was accused in sworn testimony by his daughter of molestation and by a business partner of fraud is highly relevant to anyone performing due diligence, which of course will be on the company, not the man. Shunting the gravamen of the Min Zhu controversy content to the Min Zhu article creates a POV fork and shortchanges the reader by bowdlerizing this article. Zeleny was not a WebEx employee, BTW, but a business partner, a fact and distinction I'd expect someone who opines so forcefully and officiously to already know. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Your corporate bias is showing again. I have alleged child rape coverup by WebEx. WebEx responded by suing me for libel. They dropped their lawsuit in response to my assertion of the defense of truth, following two judicial sanctions imposed on them for bad faith pleadings. Please aqcknowledge that you understand these readily verifiable facts, borne out online by the court docket and my publicly circulated allegations. Larvatus 19:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
  • The relevant sense of controversy has the form "he said/she said". My blog is the authoritative primary source on what I said. As to what she said, it falls into two categories, defined by time frames. Between 1988 and 2003, Erin Zhu repeatedly said that she was raped by her father. I have offered to provide authenticated documentary evidence of her having said so to any interested party. At present, she appears to have joined Min Zhu in an ostensibly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. While both of them have refused to accept civil subpoenas for deposition in this matter, no one is stopping either of them from going on record with their current side of the story in this venue. As for my documentary evidence, I will furnish it if and when we achieve an editorial consensus on its capacity to resolve this dispute. I am not spending more time and money on disclosing facts ascertained in extrajudicial discovery in the service of whimsical and unsatisfiable editorial agenda. Larvatus 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
And as I have said before, in the article on Min Zhu it is proper to say that "Zeleny alleges abuse". But there is no reliable source for the allegation of abuse, so it does not belong here. All you have to do to remove the many objections is to cite some reliable sources. Why will you not do that? The more you obfuscate the more I suspect that there are no reliable sources. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you read WP:NOR? --Pierremenard 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What is a more reliable source than my blog for reporting my allegations? I was not the one to caption this matter Min Zhu/Michael Zeleny controversy. Just zis  Guy, you know? is clearly unwilling to deal with the nature of the subject matter per Wikipedia policy. Larvatus 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
As previously stated ad nauseam, the fact that you said Zhu committed abuse is recorded in Min Zhu in precisely those terms (or was when I left it, anyway); the fact of your having made the allegation is allowed per WP:RS, but the allegation itself is not because you have (still, and despite innumerable requests) failed to cite a single source other than those explicitly banned under WP:RS for the abuse. So the allegation can go in Min Zhu, but the allegation pertains to Min Zhu and is thus irrelevant to WebEx. I do see what you mean when you describe yourself as a blowhard - if you devoted one tenth of the effort you've put into arguing the toss, into providing genuine and verifiable evidence, this would all have been settled long ago. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll thank you for keeping personalities out of this matter, even if you are gracious enough to sign with your given name. As to our gravamen, you are conflating two distinct allegations. One is Erin Zhu's allegation that Min Zhu repeatedly raped her when she was 14 years old. The other is my allegation that WebEx squandered its shareholders' assets on covering up child rape by its founder Min Zhu. The latter allegation is of primary relevance to an article about WebEx, whereas the former is relevant to it derivatively, to the extent that Min Zhu may or may not still be controlling its corporate policy after his resignation. Pierremenard pointed out to you that as long as my blog is being used as a source for my allegations, it counts as a valid primary source for the attached article about WebEx. As regards Erin Zhu's allegations, I shall be happy to forward authenticated documents to your email address later this week, provided that you agree to act as a neutral party for the purpose of uploading them to Wikisource, and that you have the capacity to receive PDF files of several hundred pages of documentary evidence and deposition transcripts. Larvatus 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I am not going to go round this loop again. Cite a verifiable, reliable external source for the existence of the abuse allegation. Cite a verifiable, reliable external source to back up the allegation of coverup. Otherwise it's all just garden-variety libel. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have offered to send you a verifiable and reliable external source for the existence of the abuse allegation.　Please respond to my offer. As to my allegation of coverup, I am not about to submit it for your judgment after WebEx has backed out of contesting it. Instead, I will point out that the truth of my allegation is not at issue in the matter of reporting its content and the fact of my having made it in the section of the WebEx article captioned Min Zhu/Michael Zeleny controversy. Beyond that, your giving me the lie in this forum is actionable as the selfsame "garden-variety libel" whereof you have repeatedly accused me herein. Physician, heal thyself. Larvatus 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I have said before that if you want to send conclusive proof to any editor with a real edit history and no obvious axe to grind, then that editor's word will be good enough for me. If you want me to be that editor, that's your choice, I don't mind. But please note that I am by now highly sceptical of your persistently unverified claims and will judge anything by whether it is, to my eye, falsifiable. So, for example, forwarded emails are falsifiable, but a scanned copy of a court deposition, emailed to me by your lawyer, is not. Probably. You don't need me to tell you that forgery is easy in this day and age. You also have yet to explain why it is that not one single reliable source has reported either set of allegations. And I don't believe in leak-free conspiracies, either.
As to the allegation of cover-up, nothing beyond the fact of your having alleged it has been established. And if included it should be noted that it is in the context of what is obviously a very acriomonious dispute; let the reader decide what weight to put on the cross-claims of litigants which have no currency beyond the litigants themselves.. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You keep using that word, falsifiable. "I do not think it means what you think it means." Please look into its definition. Also, please provide a high capacity email address for receiving authenticated evidentiary matters. As to leak-free conspiracies, I cannot be held responsible for the actions or omissions of independent media. Larvatus 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
  • This is not a court of law. I use falsifiable in the plain-English sense: easily falsified. You don't need me to tell you how trivially easy it is to forge usenet and email headers. You can mail me by visiting my user page and clicking "email this user". Please do not attempt to carry on the debate externally to Wikipedia. I hadn't noticed your ludicrous assertion above that my statements here are potentially actionable! Please do feel free to sue me :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • When you accuse someone of committing "garden-variety libel", you imply that his publication is actionable. Doing so outside of litigation privilege is itself equally actionable. A week ago, WebEx aborted its libel action against me, after paying up on two judicial sanctions for bad faith pleading. My own threshhold of litigiousness is set a lot higher. If you are yearning to be sued, try harder or try elsewhere. On the other hand, if you are willing to receive email, try setting up a high capacity account capable of receiving ~200Mb in PDF attachments. I recommend gmail. Larvatus 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
  • What I said was that making allegations without sources is garden variety libel, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Ask your lawyer. And as stated, you can mail me by clicking the "email this user" link on my user page (WP frowns on giving out addresses in talk pages). I have no need of gmail since I have my own mail server and domain. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


    • Wikipedia email does not accept attachments. Larvatus 19:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
  • You email me, I email you back. That's how it works. I've established contact with several editors that way. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


    • Done. Larvatus 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, I didn't ask whether you read WP:RS. That is an entirely different controversy. Have you read WP:NOR? --Pierremenard 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Larvatus, I note that you have quoted at length from WP:NOR in your arbitration statement. Therefore, I presume you have read it.
I therefore presume that you know that WP:NOR states:
"...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library."
Is the evidence that you promise to present to us about Erin Zhu's statements something I can...
I. verify by going to a local library?
II. verify by accessing a non self-published reputable publication?
(note that II rules out your livejournal and anything you or various "neutral parties" might upload to any websites).
If your evidence fails both I and II, there is no need to present it, as it qualifies as original research under WP:NOR. --Pierremenard 09:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I am about to provide excerpts from court files and judicial and extrajudicial discovery, authenticated by their makers. The former can be verified by ordering official copies from the Santa Clara and Los Angeles courthouses. The latter can be verified by ordering official copies from the court reporters identified therein. Both kinds of evidence will be accompanied by notarized affidavits signed by an officer of the California court. My interpretation of WP:NOR allows reliance upon these sources under its encouragement of sourse-based research. Please let me know your thoughts in this matter. Larvatus 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I don't think that what you propose qualifies Larvatus. WP:NOR is quite clear that anyone ought to be able to verify this information either through a non self-published reputable website, or through a local public library.
In addition, I note from [29] that you would have to pay money in order to obtain the official files you refer to. If editors had to pay money to verify claims in wikipedia, we'd all be broke pretty soon. --Pierremenard 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:NOR specifically identifies transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview as a verifiable primary source admissible for incorporation into source-based research that it deems fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. I would appreciate a citation of policies that bear out your financial constraints, or your inference that verifiable sources are limited to non self-published reputable websites and local public libraries. I see nothing in Wikipedia policies that in any way constrains the costs of verification. At any rate, I have gone to the trouble of creating authenticated copies of admissible primary sources, assuming the burden of their cost, mooting your concern about the editors' verification expenses. Let us revisit this issue after these sources have been uploaded to Wikisource. Larvatus 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
But, since no such transcripts are available to neutral parties at this time, you are still in the same position: pushing an unsupported allegation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
American court records are open to the general public. Larvatus 20:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
As stated multiple times, we have only your word for the contents of those transcripts. We don't have access to them You have not forwarded them to either of the editors who have offered to pass them on. You have also failed to show any evidence of any other source whatsoever publishing these allegations. Stop blowing steam and start citing reliable, evidence - as in evidence we can see. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll go further than User:Just zis Guy, you know? and say that even after these sources are uploaded to wikisource, they will not be good enough.
No one disputes that a transcript is fundamentally acceptable as a source; the question is accessibility. If CNN posts a transcript of a court case, no one will have a problem with using it. The issue here is that the transcripts are not accessible from a reputable, non-self published website, or through a library. How do we know the sources are genuine? They are authenticated, you say. But it is outside the scope of wikipedia editors to determine what is genuinly authenticated and what is not. We merely collect material from reputable, publicly-accessible sources.
"I would appreciate a citation of policies that bear out your financial constraints, or your inference that verifiable sources are limited to non self-published reputable websites and local public libraries." But I have already given this citation: from WP:NOR, "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." ---Pierremenard 20:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Your present concern is already satisfied by your earlier observation. As you already noted, court records are available to readers from a court website. I am simplifying this access by paying for the production of officially authenticated copies of said records. All of this fits within the policy that you have cited. Larvatus 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
"court records are available to readers from a court website." They are? Then I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression that the transcripts are not available from the website. --Pierremenard 21:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not enough to know that such a case as you mention exists...either the transcripts come from the court website, which is reputable, and can be used as sources here; or you upload something to wikisource - then it is beyond our scope here to evaluate the authenticity of the documents and they cannot be used as sources here. --Pierremenard 22:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
All it takes is money. I am supplying notarized copies of court documents at my expense. To date, two Bay Area-based editors have claimed to have verified my story at the courthouse. Once I post the documents on Wikisource, they can authenticate them at no cost beyond that of local travel. Larvatus 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Which two, out of interest? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Henryuzi and User:FeloniousMonk have claimed to have verified my story at the Santa Clara Superior courthouse. Please acknowledge your understanding that in satisfaction of Wikipedia policy, all court records are available to readers from a court website, for a fee. As you have noted from [30], you would have to pay money in order to obtain the official files to which the removed links have referred. This is no different from having to pay money to access online newspaper archives ([31]). Please cite a Wikipedia policy that requires all claims made in Wikipedia to be verifiable at no cost to its editors, or acknowledge that the challenged links to the court files are as legitimate for the purpose of verification as are links to articles in The New York Times' archives. Larvatus 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Correct. I've personally verified that this version of the Min Zhu controversy content [32] was largely accurate after reviewing Zeleny's complaint (for CV809286, if I remember) at the Superior courthouse in Santa Clara, as well as other related filings. They are also available to order online and by mail. I'm now waiting for the deposition transcripts from his attorney's office, which I'll upload and then we can put this matter to bed. FeloniousMonk 19:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Which invites the question: why has it taken so many months for Zeleny to finally get around to providing the evidence? Once we have that we can certainly expand the sentence to "Zeleny and Erin Zhu allege" or maybe even "Zeleny and Erin Zhu stated in court". Naturally the item is not established as fact, in the absence of any prosecution, but it undoubtedly strengthens the case far more than several months of "hard blowing" as it were. And if Zeleny ever succeeds in persuading any mainstream source to cover it we can reflect that, too. I can' wait to read the depositions. In fact, given that you have originals, there's nothign stopping Zeleny uploading them now is there? You can verify that what's uploaded is as stated, which is all anybody has asked for from the start. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
How many months has it been? This controversy began on or about December 23. As I pointed out earlier, this article has been preponderantly edited by other parties who claimed direct acquaintance with the court files. The question never came up before. Now that I am dancing to your tune throughout the holiday season, to satisfy demands that far exceed official Wikipedia policy, you might show some appreciation by not leaping into the breach like a naked man at a gangbang. Larvatus 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
The edit wars started in October or earlier looking at the diffs. The fact that it took months for you to accept that your say-so is not a reliable source per policy is nobody's fault but yours, as far as I can see. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The edit wars had nothing to do with my say-so. This article was primarily derived from public records maintained at the Santa Clara Superior Court. Please acknowledge your understanding of this fact and its implications. At any rate, you now have enough excerpts from the relevant files to render this issue moot. Larvatus 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. This may affect all editors of this article. Fred Bauder 01:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Court case records

I got three emails with court case files yesterday morning. I emailed questions to Larvatus. I need more information about Erin's statements, WebEx's involvement, how they relate to other people at WebEx. I'm willing to read the court records and fact check the articles. I'll put my findings on the talk page. Others can do the same.

After we have a firm set of facts, we need to decide which facts go in which article. Could I ask everyone to hold off on making changes until we have the facts and the arb case is settled. So far, everyone is showing good restraint. No 3RR blocks, no temp bans for personal attacks. Larvatus hasn't edited these articles for days.--FloNight 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I replied but have had nothing back. I'm happy to leave it to your good judgment at this stage. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The scanned files that I have on hand at the moment are incomplete. Please bear with me while my lawyer supplies me with the rest. I am bearing digitizing expenses orders of magnitude greater than those at which you balked in your objection to paying the fee at the courts' websites. Larvatus 23:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
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 all. So far, I think calling Zhu a rapist, even qualified by alleged, is not accurate. --FloNight 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You now have Bates-numbered copies of Erin Zhu's draft complaint for child rape against Min Zhu, accompanied by interview notes that served as its basis. Everyone reading her account of the events at issue should be able to derive his own conclusions. Larvatus 06:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Why not have a link to the files and let people decide for themself? --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
CyclePat, we want to make them available. Now, they might contain personal information that should not be published on the internet to the general public. --FloNight 02:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well... once you blank it out (confidential names, etc...) I can't wait to read it! But will wiki be able to publish this. Will it be "original"... do you guys have a plan to publish this somewhere else or here?
Everything I am providing is public record. By definition, it does not and cannot contain any confidential information. Larvatus 06:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Smoking Gun doesn't publish the type of personal information found in these legal files. They redact names, addresses, phone numbers,... Publishing them in their present form is below the standard of any reputable media organization. The people named in these files deserve respect and to be treated with dignity. --FloNight 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The documents are public records, freely available to anyone who requests a copy from the court. There is no policy that says personal information found in public record must be censored. FeloniousMonk 07:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think all of them are, actually; unless I am misreading something I don't believe the statements to Affeld were ever lodged in court. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Look at the Bates numbers. Larvatus 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Done that, they are from an unrelated case: I can't see any evidence that Erin Zhu ever lodged that claim, only that you entered the unproven unsworn statements in another case. Do feel free to show me where this is wrong. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Verification of the Min Zhu child rape allegations

As the original contributor of disputed content to this article, I confirm having personally reviewed court documents in Santa Clara and Los Angeles. I made my original edit based on the information contained in these files. I believe that the evidence in this public record clearly and convincingly demonstrates a failed attempt by WebEx Communications at covering up child rape by its founder Min Zhu. Other than as an investor concerned with a glaring instance of corporate misconduct, I am not involved in this controversy. I will be editing the relevant articles accordingly. Henryuzi 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)henryuzi

Thank you for confirming the facts. I would appreciate your informed participation in the ongoing arbitration of the underlying issues. Larvatus 07:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Henry, whatever edits you want to make at this article, please work with JzG, FloNight and myself to reach a consensus on content. Larvatus, thanks for your keeping your word to defer to others here and I remind you of our previous agreement. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We agreed to stay away from the articles, at least for the time being. I encourage other editors, including Henryuzi, to do likewise while the arbitration is pending. Based on the preliminary results, I am unlikely to make any further direct contributions to the articles at issue. Unless I end up foreclosed from doing so, I will be posting relevant information in the discussion pages. I expect its incorporation therein through responsible editorial consensus. Larvatus 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)larvatus
I also advise all editors to avoid using the word rape when the [urported victim has sworn under oath that no rape took place. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
She didn't actually say she wasn't raped, she said there was no intercourse. [33] (pg 129 -131) It's all in how one defines rape, I suppose. I think the relevant definition would the one relied upon by CA courts. FeloniousMonk 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The question was pretty specific, and her answer quite unambiguous. I think they call it "gross sexual imposition" in Ohio, where Brian Peppers comes from :-) Since the word rape was used in a context where she admits she lied, it seems inappropriate to use the word here. Just zis Guy you know? 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
She said other things and made other claims that I DO NOT want to discuss here. : ( FM, I thought we agreed on the wording. We both made compromises to get that wording. Why are we discussing this now? Larvatus had an agreement, yes? Can we stick to that wording at least until the arb comm case if over? FloNight talk 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I still agree shouldn't use that term, but instead "sexual abuse." I was just pointing out that things aren't so black or white, and that there is an area of overlap between the terms. Sorry if I set off the alarms. FeloniousMonk 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry FM, I didn't know where we were going? Wanted to put on the brakes till I knew. Don't think we can go too far down that road in this article. Trying to explain it makes it too wordy, too unbalanced, I think. (My metaphor ran off the road in the last sentence.) FloNight talk 05:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I think we could probably remove that, don't you think? Arbcom may rule on expanding or contracting the section, but there is pretty broad agreement on what's said right now. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag can come off. I hate tags at the top of an article. Maybe very short term. If it needs a tag, then the article needs to be fixed or the text removed. Most readers don't know the material well enough to know what is wrong. FloNight talk 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I took the tags down. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I take this to mean those at Min Zhu should come off as well. FeloniousMonk 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)