Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Larvatus

Weak evidence, weak basis for this RFC

I think that most of the evidence presented here establishes that neither FCYTravis, Demi, nor FloNight have a firm grasp of what it is that is being said by Larvatus/Zeleny in the articles they've challenged, and that that this RFC arises out of their confusion.

For example, FCYTravis describes the passage from WebEx "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." as "unsourced stuff." The passage only says that Zeleny has alleged self-dealing on the part of WebEx management, and that 5000 shares of company stock to Erin Zhu to settle her suit against her father (Min Zhu, WebEx CEO) for sexual abuse and Min Zhu's use of corporate counsel to sue Zeleny for defamation are line with Zeleny's allegation of self dealing.

What part of this does FCYTravis think should be sourced? Zeleny's initial allegation of self dealing? Zeleny makes that allegation at his blog and at the Yahoo! Finance messageboard for webx many times over. Erin Zhu's allegation of sexual abuse against her father? Here: [1]. Erin Zhu went after her father for sexual abuse? Here's Erin Zhu's attorney suing her for failing to pay him for handling that case: [2] Erin Zhu having 5000 shares of WebEx stock? Here: [3] WebEx's corporate counsel representing Zhu after he's stepped down? Here: [4]. I could go on with the other evidence offered, and but I think objective, responsible editors will look beyond the sensationalism found in the complaint and see that reporting that the CEO of a publicly-traded company being accused of child molestation by his own daughter is a matter public concern and should continue to be covered here. Our job is to report the facts, and that Erin Zhu has publicly accused her father of sexual abuse is a fact [5]. FeloniousMonk 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for an independent summary of this controversy. I reassert my eagerness to abide by Wikipedia policies. As to the substance of the foregoing, I made almost no editorial contribution to the WebEx article section detailing the squandering of its shareholders' assets on a failed coverup of sworn allegations of child rape by its founder. However, a disinterested reading of the WebEx filings in the referenced lawsuit will witness its corporate counsel going on record with unsubstantiated denials of Min Zhu's rape of his daughter, made on behalf of a publicly traded company, funded by its shareholders' assets, and bearing on matters far outside of its corporate purview. This fact, borne out by publicly accessible court filings that exemplify Wikipedia's definition of verifiable primary sources, should suffice to support the most contentious claims made therein. Other claims at issue can be as readily verified by any interested parties, following the precedent set by the editors who originally contributed the account of the Min Zhu controversy to the WebEx article. As before, I urge everyone to edit the articles in question to reflect a dispassionate account of the underlying factual record. Larvatus 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
  • 1."neither FCYTravis, Demi, nor FloNight have a firm grasp of what it is that is being said by Larvatus/Zeleny in the articles they've challenged, and that that this RFC arises out of their confusion." Only someone that's brain-dead could miss the meaning and intent of Larvatus/Zeleny's articles and edits. He links to a Live Journal entry with the title larvatus: one down, two to go 2. Larvatus/Zeleny comments on talk pages are aggresive and offensive with the intent to shock. From Talk:Einstürzende Neubauten You might have better luck with edits signed with your own name. Anonymous contributions tend to be discounted in this forum. As for things that are none of your business, just be thankful that I abstained from posting letters wherein Erin Zhu reassures Blixa Bargeld 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 3. Mid-December I reviewed his many edits in Wikipedia, Live Journal, Yahoo, and Einstürzende Neubauten... I didn't engage him further because I didn't want to subject myself and other editors to his offensive language and putdowns.--FloNight 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I find it curious that you shie away from my offensive language and putdowns after accusing your fellow editor of being brain-dead on the basis of his alleged failure to discern the meaning and intent that you purport to find in my articles and edits. Please focus on the facts independently verified by reference to posted primary sources in lieu of tarring everyone who dares to disagree with your nefarious imputations with the brush of major cerebral malfunction. Larvatus 21:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
• Felonious, the sentence you quote says a lot more than you give it credit for. It says more than the actions discussed are in line with Zeleny's allegations, it says they confirm the allegations. To confirm: as in, "to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact" from m-w.com. Its a POV edit. Anyway, let me express some opinions. It seems that Zeleny ought to stop editing pages that affect matters he was personally involved in. Objectivity in such matters is difficult for anyone. If any of the pages currently on votes-for-deletions survive, they ought be cut down to the minimum verifiable essentials. Zeleny has added a lot of biographical details that are, of course, known to him by close connection to the subject of the article but cannot be indepedently verified as per wikipedia policy. --Pierremenard 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To take one example of disputed conduct: quoting Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Yet, the content Larvatus keeps reinserting is partly based on such Usenet posts, contrary to his claim that he wants to comply with Wikipedia policy, and contrary to the idea of collaborating with other editors, as he has been warned several times about it. Demi ^T/_C 01:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. There are a couple of related AfDs and some debate on the talk pages, in each case I have told him that all he has to do is cite reliable, verifiable, trusted secondary sources - police reports, FBI wanted ads, national newspaper reports of the abuse, not of his allegation of it - but he posts the same old falsifiable links. As long as that remains the case, I for one will continue to excise these allegations on sight. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I would even accept less than that. If we had any police reports, newspaper reports, TV coverage, etc. of her making these allegations, it *might* be encyclopedic. But there is *none* - not a single piece. I know that Mr. Zeleny has alleged that she got some sort of stock payoff and "hush money" and whatnot - and that very well might be the case, I'm not denying the possibility. But there's no reliable sources reporting these allegations. There's nothing other than a bunch of pieces which *might* add up to something. They very well *might not.* Wikipedia cannot publish a strung-together bunch of "mights" that have not been published or reported on in any verifiable sources. If this were a widely-held *might* - like Kennedy theories - it could be encyclopedic - but there's no evidence available that anyone other than Zeleny has made or published these charges - which makes them unencyclopedic. The most we can verify is that Mr. Zeleny was involved in a legal dispute with the Zhus and protested a WebEx conference, causing its cancellation. Whether that's notable, I don't know. FCYTravis 22:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines a reliable source as a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. It goes on to say that 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. At issue between us is the nature of Erin Zhu's allegations of child rape by her father Min Zhu and your ablity to verify them. I have in my possession records of Usenet postings, private correspondence, interview transcripts, civil complaints, and deposition testimony, officially authenticated by their creators. Would Demi, FCYTravis, FloNight, Just zis  Guy, you know?, and Pierremenard be satisfied in their concerns by my uploading these materials to Wikisource? If not, why not? Larvatus 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Cross-claim

Given that I may have trouble reaching the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (I live in Australia), could someone tell me what is going on in this case [6] (cited by User:FeloniousMonk as a source). More specifically,

1. what is the nature of Zeleny's claim against Webex et al, and
2. what is the nature of Erin Zhu's cross-claim against Zeleny?

I don't believe I will have the full picture until I know what this is about. --bainer (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Which gets to the root of the issue - nobody knows except Zeleny, the Zhus and their attorneys. There are no independent external sources such as newspapers, television stations, etc. reporting on these allegations of abuse or anything that Zeleny has connected to them (coverup, collusion, conspiracy, exile, etc.), which makes it unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is a private legal dispute between Zeleny and the Zhus that is being splattered across Wikipedia. FCYTravis 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On further reading, I see the case was settled out of court, and presumbly is subject to a confidentiality agreement. If that is the case, then how can this be used as a source to support anything? If it is not confidential, then could someone post some of the actual documents? This docket doesn't tend to prove anything. --bainer (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "vendetta" was closer than "legal dispute" :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My claims against WebEx and the Zhus were for breach of contract and various torts ranging from fraud to death threats. Erin Zhu cross-claimed echoing similar allegations, plus defamation and invasion of privacy, whereas WebEx made a separate claim against me for libel and unfair trade practices. Erin Zhu withdrew her claims for defamation and invasion of privacy after she was ruled a public person, whereas WebEx dropped their libel lawsuit earlier today, after two monetary sanctions for their bad faith pleadings. Neither these contested claims nor their outcomes humiliating the Zhus and WebEx enter into the content of the articles at issue. My sole reference is to the verifiable factual background attested by documents contained in court files. For the benefit of parties unwilling or unable to visit the Santa Clara Superior Court, I will post authenticated copies of exhibits, declarations, and deposition transcripts after the holidays. Larvatus 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Read WP:V. The statements need to be verifiable by Wikipedians from trusted secondary sources. All you need to do is link to the Wall Street Journal article making these claims and there will be no further problem. Where are the police reports? Anybody can allege anything in court, the allegation is then tested by the court. If the case is still sub judice it has no place here, if it's been settled and the settlement is not a matter of public record then speculation on it has no place here either. As it stands there is no evidence of any source other than you. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I read not only WP:V, but also WP:No original research. The statements are verifiable by Wikipedians from publicly accessible court filings that exemplify Wikipedia's definition of verifiable primary sources. Wikipedia policy states 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. Hence the fact that this affair has fallen under the cone of silence in major newsmedia is not dispositive in determining its encyclopaedic notability. As to the primary sources, police reports exist, but remain confidential owing to the involvement of a minor. However, Erin Zhu's allegations oh her rape by her father and my allegation of his company's coverup have been tested by the courts to the extent of putting an end to their claims against me for defamation. Both the relevant court rulings and the pleadings filed in the relevant cases with supporting evidence, are available for free viewing in the referenced Santa Clara and Los Angeles Superior Court files. At this time, the only case that is still sub judice is WebEx's twice sanctioned claim against me for libel. Yesterday, WebEx agreed to drop its libel claim. Erin Zhu dropped her claims for defamation and invasion of privacy back in 2003. As for settlements that are not a matter of public record, the articles at issue incorporate no speculation as to their content. Finally, Erin Zhu has authenticated her referenced Usenet postings and private correspondence under oath, in the same civil proceedings that include her sworn testimony of molestation by her father. Her testimony establishes a primary source for these articles. I make no statements that rely solely on my dubious credibility. Everything that I said here is borne out by referenced, verifiable public record already relied upon by two judges in their judicial rulings on the underlying matters. Larvatus 15:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

So the transcripts of a dispute between you and Zhu on a business matter contain substantive proof in respect of allegations of child abuse, but the police have not seen fit to take any action, nor the press to publish it? Sorry, I don't buy that at all. You acknowledge that you are a disputatious person. You are clearly and by your own admission not neutral in respect of Zhu. Nobody neutral has been able (as far as I can tell) to verify the claim of abuse from trusted secondary sources. Every one seems to track back to a (falsifiable) Usenet post or to your own writings. Like I said before, all you need to do is link the police reports and independent newspaper coverage of the abuse allegations themselves. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Did Erin Zhu drop her defamation claim as part of the private settlement process? Or did she drop it independently before the settlement process started? And furthermore, if the "sworn testimony of molestation" was truly made by her, and was already out in the public domain, then why would she sue you for defamation? I could understand her bringing an action if the material had not yet been published, but if what you allege is true, then her actions make no sense at all. --bainer (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Erin Zhu dropped her defamation claim unilaterally over a year before she settled my claims. As to her actions making no sense at all, I am not qualified to judge her motives. Larvatus 16:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

I agree, "vendetta" sounds right. Even a "legal dispute" is too much--Wikipedia shouldn't be a vehicle for people to prosecute grievances against other people, certinly not by editing articles about them. Even if the facts are verified, this is inherently NPOV. And the claim of notability is not, I think, satisfied simply because there was a court case; otherwise we wouldn't have any controversy over including articles on crime victims. The bar is being set pretty low there. But in this case even the arguably-encyclopedic legal dispute has descended into vendetta with the posting of ("verifiable") claims about someone's impotence, "documented" by excerpts from personal emails, etc. I mean really, how low are we going go? Lost in the arguments about verifiability is the question of whether this is a place we *should* go. What's next, edit wars between couples undergoing nasty divorces? rodii 15:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's my opinion that anything which can't be verified by external third-party sources doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It can be verified in third-party sources that Mr. Zeleny had a legal dispute, and protested outside a WebEx conference, causing its cancellation. However, the sex allegations cannot be verified and have not been reported by any reliable third-party sources, hence they are unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FCYTravis 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that was what They had in mind when They wrote the following:

A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. 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. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by Just zis Guy, you know? (talk • contribs)

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 Just zis Guy, you know? or FCYTravis have a problem with this Wikipedia policy statement? If so, what is it? If not, what problem do they have with citing court records or officialy authenticated Usenet postings, private correspondence, and interview transcripts in source-based research? Larvatus 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

An evasion. WP:NOR allows for information gathered from primary sources, but WP:V and WP:RS absolutely require that all such information be verifiable from reliable secondary sources. As you are perfectly well aware. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that there are no reliable secondary sources for your alegations. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

One step at a time. I have in my possession records of Usenet postings, private correspondence, interview transcripts, civil complaints, and deposition testimony, officially authenticated by their creators. Would you be satisfied in your concerns by my uploading these materials to Wikisource? If not, why not? Larvatus 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Sworn testimony in the form of deposition transcripts is by definition acceptable per WP:V. If digital files of the depositions transcripts are available, then that is all that is necessary to settle this matter. Hard copies don't help us much. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)