Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu

Is Zeleny's livejournal an acceptable source for allegations made by Zeleny?
There has been a debate involving myself and user User:Just zis Guy, you know? on Talk:WebEx about whether it is OK to add the sentence " Zeleny alleges that Zhu retired in response to the publicity surrounding his publishing his daughter's allegations of sexual abuse" to the article, with the source for this being Zeleny's own livejournal. I hope the final decision will clarify who is right on this matter, i.e. whether using a primary source in this way satisfies WP:RS or not. --Pierremenard 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to include 8 more related articles
I request that all Wikipedia articles edited by User:Larvatus to reflect his POV about Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, and WebEx be reviewed and subject to the findings of this arbitration case. I have identified 10 articles started or expanded by Larvatus with POV content. Min Zhu and WebEx per this case. And Blixa Bargeld, Einstürzende Neubauten, New Enterprise Associates, and Coverup. Plus Subrah Iyar, Scott Sandell, Erin Zhu, and Michael Zeleny that were deleted by Afd on 12/29. Also, a finding about User:Larvatus may be needed to clarify articles content vs. user page content. It would be wise to explicitly deal with all these articles at the same time. Thank you.--FloNight 17:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"LARVATUS"'S EDITS CHECK OUT
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. 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 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)henryuzi