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

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

The claims are not verifiable
The Wikipedia Verifiability policy states One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher... For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first. None of the claims made by Mr. Zeleny have been reported upon or published by any source other than his blog, Usenet and message boards, hence they do not appear to be verifiable.

There are no available reliable sources reporting on the issue
A Google News search for Min Zhu returns not a single news article reporting on this dispute. The only news articles available with reference to Mr. Zhu make no mention of this alleged "controversy." It defies belief that such a serious issue, if actually based in truth, would be completely ignored by every news outlet in the world. There is not a single third-party, independently-written and unbiased account of these events available.

The verifiability policy goes on to state, ''Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles. Again, the only place these allegations have been published are blogs, the Usenet and message boards, all of which are specifically excluded by policy - Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website.''

There is no evidence that these claims have gained broader currency
Per the proposed policy/guideline, Biographies of living persons, being drawn up in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident, '''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.'''
 * The Google search for "Min Zhu" sex returns 429 hits, of which the first several are Wikipedia entries and the rest completely unrelated. The Google search for "Min Zhu" Zeleny returns 60 hits, of which the first several are Wikipedia entries and the others, message board postings and Mr. Zeleny's own blog. Clearly, Wikipedia is here being used as the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. There is not a single other person besides Zeleny making and pushing these allegations into the public eye. Hence this is not so much a controversy as a single-handed crusade, which while potentially well-intentioned, is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Larvatus cannot edit these issues in good faith
Mr. Zeleny is clearly fixated on this dispute due to his deep-seated personal involvement in the issue, and has engaged in a campaign of attempting to make his allegations known in as many places on Wikipedia as possible, to the point of inserting his completely unsourced allegations of some mass WebEx conspiracy into Cover-up here, with the edit summary: "added example of WebEx coverup of child rape by Min Zhu." Larvatus also created several articles on allegedly related figures for no other purpose than to link them to his conspiracy allegations. Several of these articles have since been deleted through AfD.


 * Starts the Min Zhu page - "allegedly driven into allegedly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. by allegations of incestuous pedophile rape"
 * Starts the Erin Zhu page, again with extra added allegations.
 * Adds "alleged daughter rapist Min Zhu" to article about venture capital company that funded Zhu's startup.
 * Creates Scott Sandell, an article on a partner in the above venture capital company, and again relates it to "alleged daughter rapist Min Zhu." On the talk page, posts "...Sandell's backing of paedophile Min Zhu..."
 * Creates Subrah Iyar, an article on the co-founder of WebEx, again with sex allegations against Zhu and allegations that Iyar was complicit - "Michael Zeleny has alleged that Subrah Iyar participated in a coverup by WebEx of Min Zhu's child rape."
 * Refers to Zhu as a "known pedophile" and says he has a history of "forcing his family into serving as his sex partners."
 * Adds Min Zhu to several clearly libelous categories, including "Rapists," "Child sex offenders" and "Incest."
 * Replaces those categories after another editor expresses concern for their fairness and removes them.
 * Makes a legal threat against an anon who questioned the subject - "Needless to say, nothing but the likelihood of being served a subpoena in the ongoing legal actions should be stopping you from registering as an editor and performing these tasks yourself."

Upon being challenged by other editors, Larvatus made accusations of collusion, and even accused myself of being bribed (by his unknown enemies?) to carry out this investigation.

FeloniousMonk's involvement
Despite his accusation of me being an "eager beaver admin" assembling a "crew of like-minded editors," FeloniousMonk was apparently "recruited" himself by Larvatus long before I stumbled across the dispute. He has a history of trying to essentially hide this issue from scrutiny and thwart any investigation into the credibility and encyclopedicity of the allegations. Several editors have questioned Larvatus' edits, and all of those interested have been, by FeloniousMonk's actions, told to essentially shut up and go away.
 * Here in September, FeloniousMonk unilaterally reverts User:Markkawika's NPOV-dispute tag on WebEx.
 * Here in October, FeloniousMonk reverts without comment Alex ex's addition of an NPOV-dispute tag to the Min Zhu article. Alex ex leaves a note on FeloniousMonk's talk page asking about the reversion. He never gets an answer.
 * Again in October, FeloniousMonk again reverts Geni's NPOV-dispute tag on WebEx, claiming unilaterally "Template is unjustified."
 * Here in early December, again before I was involved, FeloniousMonk again uses the rollback button to revert FloNight's removal of Min Zhu from the clearly libelous "Rapist," "Child sex offender" and "Incest" categories.

FeloniousMonk made similar unilateral removals of NPOV tags and replacement of libelous categories on Erin Zhu, but of course those diffs are unavailable as the article has been deleted. Just browse the deleted history.

After I began looking into the dispute and editing the articles in question, FeloniousMonk left me a clearly-unwarranted and malicious "vandalism" warning - and then followed it up with an inappropriate and abusive threat to block me for "vandalism" - which I feel was an attempt to intimidate me into dropping my pursuit of this issue.

Supporting the above
Firstly, I concur with what FCYTravis says above. I am not an admin (eager beaver or otherwise), I came to this dispute because it bears some similarity with the problems I had over Simon Wessely, namely, editor(s) adding content which they claim is justified on the grounds that it can be proved they said the same thing elsewhere.

I do believe that FeloniousMonk is acting in good faith, to the extent that I have previously said that if FeloniousMonk gets copies of the documents which allegedly substantiate the claims, I will accept his word. This exchange appears to have been on the Talk page of one of the deleted articles, since I can't find it any more. That said, there have been two people now identified as possible conduits for authenticated reliable information, Felonious and me, and although the timescales are only a few days no such documentation has arrived. Which is not to say it won't.

I also believe that Larvatus (Michael Zeleny), a self-confessed "blowhard", is being mischievous. The Talk threads at Talk:WebEx and Talk:Min Zhu make it abundantly clear that he is well aware of the provisions of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. His response to requests for reliable sources has been in every case to try to argue that he is a reliable source, despite sound arguments to the contrary, rather than to produce any external sources. Since Larvatus now apologizes for "having improperly referenced unauthenticated Usenet postings" that part of the issue is now apparently accepted by all sides.

It seems to me entirely reasonable to place the burden of proof on the accuser here, and the removal of serious allegations pending reliable evidence is wholly justified especially since, as FCYTravis says, there is absolutely no known third-party evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Larvatus violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA
This diff shows Larvatus accusing me of (continuing) "corporate bias". No reason has been advanced as to why I should care about WebEx in any way. - JzG 14:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions over WP:RS
A deposition in case CV 810705 between Erin Zhu and one Isaak Zelyony in respect of two companies (Live Share and PTYZ), refers directly to the claims of abuse. In it (p129) Erin Zhu states that she lied when she told Michael Zeleny that her father had raped her.

FeloniousMonk states per WP:RS:


 * Draft complaint from the law offices of David Affeld filed against Min Zhu for childhood sexual abuse, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Erin Zhu, his daughter and plaintiff. pg 24, Bates number P1116

This series of interviews was in respect of a plaint which was, as far as I can tell, never lodged by Erin Zhu, and is specifically contradicted by later sworn testimony (in a case brought against Erin Zhu by Zeleny's father). Larvatus frequently uses the terms rape and child rape; when pressed on these terms under oath (see the link above), in a document clearly in Zeleny's possession, Erin Zhu specifically repudiates rape, and states directly that she lied to Zeleny about it. As far as can be ascertained from this sworn statement, the transcripts by Affeld are not only repudiated but at least in part may not be true reflection of his interviews with Erin Zhu; Erin states that she did not check them before submission.

As far as WP:RS goes, then, the Affeld statements, which are not sworn statements and are contradicted in at least some details by Erin Zhu and stated not to have been checked by her, are to my mind not reliable, and Zeleny, to whom Erin Zhu admits she lied and who is or has been in legal dispute with more or less every other party named, is of course not reliable either.

Evidence presented by Demi
Some of this duplicates evidence already presented by FCYTravis. Also, I believe the larger portion of this case rests upon Wikipedia's responsibility (or lack thereof) to repeat any accusation that can be defined to have been made "in the public record", and the user conduct below is the lesser portion; nevertheless it is the only part of the case for which evidence is applicable.

Larvatus is using Wikipedia as a soapbox
Larvatus is continuing a pre-existing campaign against WebEx, Min Zhu and Subrah Iyar.

Larvatus is personally involved in the WebEx conflicts
These facts are not really in dispute, but offered for completeness.


 * Larvatus was Erin Zhu's live-in boyfriend. links to
 * Larvatus is involved in lawsuits with Subrah Iyar, Erin Zhu, Min Zhu and WebEx.
 * Larvatus caused a security incident at a WebEx function to push his agenda.
 * Larvatus believes himself blocked in getting his story out by a conspiracy of major newsmedia.

Larvatus is disingenuous with sources and policy
Larvatus claims to have an "eagerness to abide by Wikipedia policies" but has ignored applicable portions of policies and guidelines, even when instructed by other editors. He seems to not recognize that consensus editing serves the best article, not what he can possibly justify including.


 * Larvatus calls his exhibits and deposition transcripts "judicial records" and implies they have been ratified by a court decision.
 * Repeatedly describes his conclusions, theories and narrative as "source-based research", despite quoting the Wikipedia definition of this as mere "collecting and organizing."
 * He describes sources as stating what they do not, namely his personal theories about Min Zhu's "exile" and other events.
 * Despite having been warned about it, repeatedly uses poor sources (Usenet messages, blog and forum posts)      , indeed even argues for it.
 * Larvatus asserts that another editor not reverting a past revision implies approval.

Larvatus considers Wikipedia a vehicle for his personal opinions
Larvatus considers his personal opinions and conclusions superior to a neutral point of view.


 * Larvatus advances his theory about Min Zhu's semi-retirement and uses lurid link text to attract interest in his campaign.  (note use of "allegedly voluntary")
 * Larvatus thinks it's okay to imply causality as long as the language is modified.
 * Larvatus inserts his accusations in other articles
 * Makes his intention clear by referring to Min Zhu as "known pedophile" in talk pages and edit summaries  and referring to allegations as "fact."
 * Larvatus pushes his personal theories and conclusions in other articles, such as Savage Love       , several times terming removal of his opinion "vandalism."
 * Argues for the inclusion of his WebEx accusations on activist grounds (that is, the public needs to know).
 * Makes similar argument   regarding Kent Hovind, (skewering Hovind is the goal).
 * Describes Hovind's appearance on Da Ali G Show in his own non-neutral terms--Ali G "won", "was able to cast doubts...", "most famous is believed to have been...", "unavailing", insists on it , calls it a "verbatim transcript" and derides another editor's "editorial discretion" , basically to present his opinion (that Ali G "won" a contest ) as fact.
 * Larvatus linkspams his blog.

Larvatus attacks other editors to push his agenda
Larvatus' edit history reveals one almost entirely in conflict with other editors, and few edits not related to one conflict or another. Previous examples show many times where he as termed the edits of other editors "vandalism". Additionally:


 * Made a legal threat against an anonymous user and Just zis Guy, you know?
 * Accuses FCYTravis of being a paid agent of those opposing him, and then removes part of his comment and demands an assumption of good faith after making this accusation

FeloniousMonk has misused administrative privileges
FeloniousMonk has used his position as an administrator inappropriately to further his side in this dispute:
 * FeloniousMonk is a partisan in this case, agreeing with Larvatus that "getting the word out" is a job Wikipedia should be performing
 * Uses rollback button to enforce his preferred version
 * Implicitly uses administrative privileges to enforce his version by threatening to block FCYTravis, even arguing that this is "justifiable"

Evidence presented by FloNight
===Larvatus and FeloniousMonk added inaccurate, defamatory, libelous content against WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV & WP:V and Wikipedian community feedback.=== After the biography of David Hager was categorized as Rapist inaccurately, I started to survey crime related articles looking for other misclassifications. On 12/10/05, I found the articles Article A and Article B tagged with inaccurate crime categories. I removed the tags for Rapist, Child sex offender, Fraudster, Incest, Sex crime, and Crime biographical stubs because there is no verifiable conviction or even indictment. They were re-applied by FeloniousMonk. After the crime categories were re-applied, I read the article talk pages, Larvatus’s Live Journal entries, achieve of Usernet discussions, the online court case info, Einstürzende Neubauten fan websites, WebEx website, and other online content. I found and read other Wikipedia articles written or edited by Larvatus: Article C, WebEx Article E, Article F, Einstürzende Neubauten , Article D , New Enterprise Associates , and Coverup. Not finding verifiable evidence of conviction or another credible source, on 12/12/05, I removed the crime categories and moved non-encyclopedic text from Article A to the talk page to begin consensus building for a re-write. FeloniousMonk reverted my edits and left me a warning on my User talk page. I’m not the first person to remove the tags or edit out pov text. During the Rfc, many editors expressed concern about the content. Ambi, squibix, OnceBitten, rodii Matthew Brown, Zoe 216.234.130.130 Tim Pierce Stifle JoaoRicardo,  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  Only a few people in during the Rfc saw no problem with Larvatus's edits. FeloniousMonk Jim62sch Guettarda

Larvatus ‘s communication approach often lacks civility and frequently hinders consensus building.

 * Larvatus ascribes motives to other editors and their edits. Regrettably, this may be a reaction to other editors calling attention to his obvious conflict of interest.

1. Needless to say, nothing but the likelihood of being served a subpoena in the ongoing legal actions should be stopping you from registering as an editor and performing these tasks yourself. 

2. ...pointing out these unpleasantries is not a nice thing to do. ...agrees with your ladylike sensibilities

3. Your deletionist justification... Why not try your whitewashing on a worthier subject? Larvatus 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus 

4. ...eager to take the corporate side in your interpretation of this issue,... 

1. As for things that are none of your business, just be thankful that I abstained from posting letters wherein Person B reassures Person F that impotence is not a big deal, and confirms her eagerness to be penetrated with his firm hand in lieu of his flagging penis. Then again, doesn't that shed light on beautiful music they are making together? 68.66.84.235 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)larvatus
 * Larvatus makes disruptive comments on talk pages contrary to Civility.

2. 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 

3. Last 2 sentences from Statement by Larvatus in this Rfa ''As regards my fitness to edit articles in which I have a personal stake, I will gladly defer to the administrative consensus. I add only that in accordance with the relevant policy, it is no more handicapped than that of a woman editing articles on abortion policy, or a self-identified gay man editing an article  on the purposely offensive coinage of the eponym "santorum" by self-identified gay sex columnist Dan Savage.'' Larvatus 21:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

other samples

Larvatus and FeloniousMonk has taken ownership of articles violating WP:OWN policy.

 * Larvatus started and expanded articles about his ex-romantic and business partner and his legal disputes with her and her family. Article A, Article B, Article C, Article D, Article E

From first 2 sentences of Rfar Statement by Larvatus: As its recommended first step in dispute resolution, Wikipedia policy advises disputants to talk to the other parties involved. In the instant matter, I have attempted to do that at every step ''Please cite your reasons for any attempt to remove content. Unsupported edits are subject to summary reversal.'' Larvatus 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus Other examples, ,
 * His first-hand knowledge makes him an authority on these subjects. He expects other editors to justify changes to the article with him.

====Larvatus recruited FeloniousMonk to help him guard these articles from editing by ordinary editor.==== , ,

FloNight's Update

I'm not going to escalate the tension in this case by responding to the evidence laid down against me by FeloniousMonk and making counter charges. I am confident that FeloniousMonk and I can work out our editing dispute with the assistance of other editors. Better communication and a renewed emphasis on WP:AGF will help us reach consensus. I think it is in the best interest of everyone involved to stay focused on the major issues in this arbcom case and settle our minor conflicts in other venues.

The claims are verifiable
Just not by unmotivated editors. Court records, being public record, are by definition verifiable. The version of the Min Zhu controversy content I found at the time of my arrival at the article provided court case numbers (Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara case number CV809286,  Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara case number CV-024062) which allowed me to verify the article's content both at the Santa Clara Superior Court of California courthouse and through legal database searches.

Wikipedia:NPOV:A vital component: good research states: "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research." Making an extra effort to verify contentious content is a hallmark of good research, in my opinion. The same section of the NPOV policy also states "A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source." The article did just this by providing court case numbers. Court records are public record, and by definition verifiable.

There's no policy preventing editors from making the extra effort to look beyond Google to verify this article's content, and every reason to encourage it. Were Wikipedia to restrict content to that which is only verifiable by the lowest common denominator, i.e.; Google, the resultant encyclopedia would be very sorry indeed.

Working from the court records now uploaded and available online, the verifiable facts are: Those are the verifiable facts. They resulted in content reached by consensus here.
 * That Erin Zhu retained an attorney, David Affeld, to pursue a complaint for childhood sexual abuse against her father, WebEx cofounder and CTO Min Zhu, and went through all the typical and necessary legal steps to pursue that complaint, including making a statement outlining the sexual abuse in her own words.
 * That such a complaint was drafted and present to Min Zhu (pg 24)
 * That Erin Zhu's father, Min Zhu ostensibly settled the complaint before it was filed for $300,000.
 * That at this time Erin Zhu also received 5000 shares of WebEx stock from WebEx (pg 3)
 * That after settling the claim with her father and receiving the 5000 shares of WebEx stock Erin Zhu abandoned the ptyx/LiveShare business partnership. (pg 2, 11)
 * That her business partner, and former boyfriend, Michael Zeleny, then sued Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, his wife and WebEx for fraud, alleging that Erin Zhu absconded with company assets, namley 5000 shares of WebEx stock, and converted them to personal use, and that her family, as agents of WebEx, colluded (1-02-CV-809286 Zeleny-Vs-Zhu).
 * That at the same time Erin Zhu's attorney in the suit against her father, David Affeld, sued Erin Zhu and Min Zhu for fraud in failing to pay for services rendered.
 * That in filing his suit, Michael Zeleny entered as evidence into the public record the complaint for childhood sexual abuse that Erin Zhu had drafted against her father and related documents establishing where and how Erin received the contested assets. (pg 24, 36)
 * An additional suit for fraud naming Erin Zhu as defendant was brought by Zeleny's father relating to a credit card he'd given her (1-02-CV-810705 Zelyony-Vs-Zhu).
 * In these suits Min Zhu and his wife are represented by WebEx corporate counsel, and WebEx corporate counsel pleaded on behalf WebEx that Min Zhu did not molest his daughter.
 * That Michael Zeleny then made public the details of the draft complaint and interview in which Erin Zhu details the sexual abuse at the hands of father. This is made public on the Yahoo! Finance messageboard for WebEx and Zeleny's blog. In both locations, Zeleny alleges that WebEx was assisting Min Zhu in covering up his molestation of his daughter by using shareholder assets, namely, the services of the corporate counsel and the shares of stock given to Erin Zhu.
 * That while being deposed in the 1-02-CV-810705 Zelyony-Vs-Zhu suit, where Erin Zhu was being sued for fraud, Erin testified under oath that she was sexually abused by her father short of sexual intercourse (pg 129 -131).
 * That WebEx filed a defamation suit against Michael Zeleny . Zeleny responded with an Anti-SLAPP motion. Three of the four causes of action are eventually struck down and WebEx ordered by the court to pay Zeleny's attorney's fees.
 * That Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, and WebEx settled all fraud suits brought by the Zeleny family and David Affeld for undisclosed sums, ,.
 * That WebEx drops its defamation suit against Michael Zeleny, but not before Zeleny is arrested protesting in front of the 2005 WebEx user conference in San Francisco. Zeleny alleges malicious prosecution and that he will pursue legal recourse. This statement is made at the Yahoo! Finance WebEx messageboard and on his blog.

There are reliable sources reporting on the issue
Court records, particularly those that are sworn testimony, are by definition reliable sources. Wikipedia Reliable sources states "Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court." The article content deleted by FCYTravis provided court case numbers which would allow anyone to view or obtain court filings as I did that supported the content. The public record fully supports the account of the matter he insisted on deleting: The documents contained herein are public record, originally filed as evidence in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara by the Law Offices of David W. Affeld 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 780, Los Angeles, CA 90025. The law office's address and phone number are available online at the court website. I provided this link to FCYTravis on a number of occasions. FCYTravis could have easily contacted Affeld to request copies or confirm the content.
 * Draft complaint from the law offices of David Affeld filed against Min Zhu for childhood sexual abuse, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Erin Zhu, his daughter and plaintiff. pg 24, Bates number P1116
 * Interview entered as evidence, in which Erin provides background and description of molestation. pg 36, Bates number P1128
 * E-mail entered as evidence in which Erin Zhu states her father, Min Zhu, molested her at age fourteen. pg 17, Bates number P0596
 * E-mail entered as evidence in which Zeleny demands payment from WebEx for services rendered. pg 22, Bates number P0629

The content is relevant to WebEx
FCYTravis argues that the Min Zhu controversy content is not relevant to the WebEx article. Yet Zeleny's lawsuits name WebEx specifically. Furthermore, WebEx filed a counter claim against Zeleny. WebEx is a publicly-traded company. 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. Wikipedia is often a first stop for those looking for a reasonably unbiased description of controversies. The fact that one of WebEx's founding 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 will more likely be performed on the company, not the man. Shunting the gravamen of the content to the Min Zhu article creates a POV fork and shortchanges the reader by bowdlerizing the article.

FCYTravis has shunted the Min Zhu controversy content from the WebEx article to the Min Zhu article, violating the POV forks clause of the NPOV policy. So doing bowdlerizes the article, removing a supported, factual, dispassionate description of the events in favor of an uncited, pov, editorial commentary and POV fork.

My involvement
Contrary to allegations made above, I began editing the WebEx article before User:Larvatus started editing Wikipedia:
 * History of the WebEx article I first edited the article 14 September 2005
 * Larvatus' contribution history  Larvatus began editing Wikipedia 23 September 2005

There's nothing sinister in Larvatus recognizing my viewpoint on the article's content as sympathetic to his own and seeking my assistance. Contrary to FCYTravis' allegation I have never conspired with Larvatus to promote libelous content.

I reduced the content signicantly from the original version I first verified.

Assume Good Faith
Much of this conflict could have been avoided had FCYTravis assumed good faith and worked with us to secure the additional supporting documents instead of against us. Now they've been secured none the less. FCYTravis also failed to assume good faith in systematically carrying out AFD's on each of the articles Larvatus contributed to the project:

FloNight's recent exclusionism, ownership of Min Zhu, censorship, and obstructionism

 * Trying to exclude participants In recent discussion between the various parties in attempting to reach a consensus on mutually acceptable content for the Min Zhu article, User:FloNight has sought to exclude any participation of myself and User:Larvatus: "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."
 * In posting "Need to add policy that prevents people involved in a legal case from editing articles related to people in the legal dispute. There is documented bias in these cases. People have the right to sue each other, but they have no right to edit." on 19 December FloNight admits that she knows there is no policy precluding the responsible participation of editors in articles that directly involve them and exposes her bias on the matter.
 * Censorship User:FloNight at Min Zhu unilaterally censored previously verified content agreed upon by Just zis Guy, you know?, Larvatus, and FeloniousMonk: FloNight has repeatedly failed to justify her action in censoring that content by citing relevant Wikipedia policies or reverting to the content previously agreed upon by other editors:
 * Call: Response:
 * Call: Response:
 * Call: Response:
 * Call: Response:
 * Call: Response:
 * Call: Response:
 * Call: Response:
 * Obstructionism User:FloNight at Min Zhu has sought to obstruct at each juncture the return to the article the content resulting from consensus between Just zis Guy, you know?/Larvatus/FeloniousMonk she unilaterally censored:
 * Setting the stage
 * Refusing to return consensus content to article claiming "breaks three or more WP policy/guidelines" and is "inaccurate." FloNight has never subsequently stated which guidelines the content breaks
 * Invoking WP:BLP (a proposed guideline) as justification for censorship Never mind that WP:BLP explicitly states "Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable..." and that the sworn testimony we've presented as found in the public record is solidly verifiable.
 * Again, ignoring that that WP:BLP states "Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable..."
 * Now claiming the content would cause harm Again, never mind that the content is freely available to the public as public record and that Erin Zhu already published the particulars on the usenet in 1991.
 * Invoking a policy I've yet to ever see
 * Failing to concede a point, keeping ownership
 * Again, speciously invoking WP:BLP as justification for censorship Here, FloNight also claims "during the writing of Biographies of living people, I tried to get my fellow Wikipedians to remove the section that said incorrect biographical information must stay in WP if it appears in a mainstream media article." Yet FloNight's participation in drafting WP:BLP is limited to one comment where she claims "Need to add policy that prevents people involved in a legal case from editing articles related to people in the legal dispute. There is documented bias in these cases.  People have the right to sue each other, but they have no right to edit Wikipedia."
 * Rapidly replacing the previous statement with a claim that the Larvatus RFC and RFAr justify her censorship
 * Posting long passages of policy and guideline The participants had already acknowledged that they were already familiar with them.
 * Again, unnecessarily burying participants with a mountain of quotes from marginally related policies and guidelines
 * Again, tossing long passages of policy and guidelines at participants, this time completely unrelated
 * Claiming citing sworn testimony found in public record is "cherry picking" as justification for insisting her censored content stay off the article
 * Claiming the Larvatus RFC supports her removal of the consensus content and her obstruction of restoring it to the article


 * a Comment, if I might be so bold? I would dispute the WP:OWN violation but support the point that FloNight should have distinguished between Larvatus and FeloniousMonk, since I know of no evidence that Felonious has a dog in this fight any more than FloNight or I do. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've dropped this evidence as FloNight has demonstrated a willingness to reach consensus in the intervening days at Talk:Min Zhu. We now have settled on a consensus version of the content. FeloniousMonk 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias Is Not the Problem
Contrary to various misstatements by FCYTravis and Demi, I have made no personal accusations, promulgated no conspiracy theories, and issued no legal threats. It remains that all contributors to a public information resource are liable for their contributions. My default assumption in dealing with editorial disagreements is that they are motivated by personal interest, as well they should be. Verification is fostered by the ensuing disagreement. If WebEx is likely to have a hand in this process, it can only contribute to a better factual grounding of the end product. All the same, it behooves every contributor to apply the same standard of verification and presumption of motive in imputing libel and bad faith to others, as he wishes to impose on their currently questioned contributions. I ask for the benefit of assuming my good faith in being able to report truthfully on the matters of my personal involvement. Contrary to the misstatement by User:FloNight:FloNight, I never implied that other editors should justify changes to the article with me, in making my request to cite reasons for any attempt to remove content. By inspiring summary reversals by all and sundry, unsupported edits redound to wasted effort and ruffled sensibilities. By contrast, when properly challenged by FCYTravis on the fitness of criminal category templates to the article on Min Zhu, I conceded his point without further ado.

I am equally aware of the need to foster editorial consensus, and the difficulties involved in attaining it. The relevant parts of the WebEx article at the heart of this controversy have been created and claimed to be verified by their creators without any input from me, ,. My first contribution to that article erroneously cited Erin Zhu's Usenet postings as primary sources and my website as a secondary source. I have remedied this error by substituting sources admissible under Wikipedia policy. 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. Since then, I have paid for digitizing copies of the relevant court documents that I then personally forwarded to interested parties in this dispute. Some of these materials have already been posted on Wikisource. I am confident that the complete set of court extracts will bear out the disputed claims.

All Claims at Issue Are Verifiable And Have Been Verified
WP:No original research expressly endorses reliance on information collected from primary and secondary sources, classified as "source-based research". I am unaware of any basis in Wikipedia policy for arbitrarily disqualifying judicial rulings and sworn testimony on the basis of editorial unwillingness or inability to follow other editors by verifying them. FeloniousMonk has verified my story at the Santa Clara Superior courthouse. In satisfaction of Wikipedia policy, all court records are available to readers at the courthouse, free of charge, or from that court's website, for a fee. In this matter, the financial requirements are no different in kind from having to pay money to access online newspaper archives. I am unaware of a Wikipedia policy that requires all claims made in Wikipedia to be verifiable at no cost to its editors, or implies that the challenged links to the court files are any less legitimate for the purpose of verification than are links to articles in The New York Times' archives.

At present, the relevant part of the WebEx article is captioned Min Zhu/Michael Zeleny controversy. The relevant sense of controversy has the form "he said/she said". My blog is the authoritative primary source on what I said and did in publicizing allegations of child rape made by Erin Zhu against her father Min Zhu, a co-founder and former executive of WebEx, in an effort to relieve him of positions of public trust. In these matters, as pointed out by Pierremenard, my personal website may be used as a primary source for writing about me. Since that is precisely the case in the matter of reporting my allegations of WebEx's coverup of Min Zhu's rape of his daughter and other relevant parts of my controversy with WebEx, Just zis Guy, you know? is mistaken in editing out links to my blogs. As to what Erin Zhu said in making and partially retracting her allegations of having been raped by her father, all relevant claims have been borne out by copies of legal documents created on behalf of Erin Zhu by her lawyers David Affeld and Christopher Higashi. Conformed copies of these documents are maintained as part of referenced court files at the Santa Clara Superior Court. In relevant parts they have been recently uploaded to Wikisource by FeloniousMonk.

Additional claims are borne out by other sources. On May 3, 2005 ConferencingNews.com published a notice, entitled "2nd Day of WebEx User Conference Cancelled Due to Protester" in its section of Breaking News. This notice read as follows: "The WebEx User Conference and Partner’s Summmit was abruptly canceled today due to an individual, without any affiliation to WebEx, 'protesting' against WebEx outside the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco yesterday afternoon. A Russian rifle and ammunition were found in his car, and he was then detained and let go without his weapons. Evidently, the 'protester' in question has had a grudge against WebEx, and WebEx thought it best to cancel the remainder of the conference, attended by about 350 WebEx users. WebEx pointed out that security was of prime concern to its customers, partners, and employees, and indicated that it would continue the rest of the conference via WebEx within two weeks." Ten days later, a WebEx press release stated: "WebEx co-founder Min Zhu has retired as chief technology officer and a director. Zhu is relocating to China and will become a WebEx Fellow." Another press release added: "'Min is undeniably the pioneer of real-time collaboration, added Iyar. 'His technical vision, strategic insight and inspired leadership have transformed the way companies around the world conduct business. With our seasoned management team in place, Min is free to retire from day-to-day operations.'" This story was confirmed by WebEx's SEC filing of May 17, 2005  and noted by posters on the Yahoo! WEBX stock board, , , , ,. While the conferecingnews.com's "breaking news" story of the WebEx User Conference closing down in response to my protest has been deleted from that board, it is referenced in the posts made by various shareholders on the Yahoo! WEBX discussion board:, , ,. Additionally, Stephanie Downs at ConferZone reports that the day her presentation was scheduled at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco, organizers had to cancel because "a protestor with guns was outside the event and was consequently arrested Monday night." Per quoted Wikipedia guideline, the referenced blogs may be used as a source of information about the owner of the website, in her capacity as a participant and presenter in the WebEx User Conference. WebEx's corporate counsel David Farrington, 408-435-7528, has been reported to confirm this turn of events in response to inquiries by the shareholders and the press. The content of my protests and their outcome is attested and witnessed online. To date, FCYTravis has failed to spell out his objections to reporting the relevant facts without any conclusory commentary.

This Is a Corporate Matter of Significant Public Interest
In attempting to move the relevant content to Min Zhu, FCYTravis has sought to bring it under the purview of the proposed guidelines for Biographies of living persons. However, contrary to assertions made by FCYTravis, the instant issue is a corporate controversy, first and foremost. My partnership was with WebEx, not with Min Zhu. It was agreed upon by WebEx's CEO 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. Two weeks ago, WebEx agreed to drop its lawsuit in response to my defense of truth, after having been sanctioned twice for bad faith pleadings. All these facts are readily verified by court documents available on Wikisource.

As a minimum, it follows from the aforementioned factual record that WebEx reported that Min Zhu resigned as its executive and director and left the U.S.A. on May 13, 2005, ten days after Michael Zeleny caused WebEx's User Conference to shut down by publicizing allegations of his incestuous pedophile rape made by his daughter Erin Zhu. The fallout of Erin Zhu's verifiable allegations of child rape is a verifiable event of obvious interest to corporate concerns involving not only WebEx, but also New Enterprise Associates, where Min Zhu continues to serve as a venture partner and co-manager of its recently instituted China fund.

"Larvatus"'s edits check out as verifiable
I am the original contributor of "controversial" content to the WebEx article. 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.

Assumptions of good faith apply to editors who are parties in lawsuits
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 06:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Henryuzi