Talk:Cisco Webex

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 ([1]) 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

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)

File: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 [2]. Clicking on the case numbers gives the details for each case. Same is true for the Los Angeles Superior Court [3]. Reading the usenet postings of Erin Zhu [4], 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 [5], 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. [6]

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." [7] [8] [9] Zeleny claims that Min Zhu retired in response to the publicity surrounding his daughter's allegations of child rape. [10]

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 [11]. 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: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Does FCYTravis have a problem with reporting these relevant facts without any conclusory commentary? Furthermore, as explained above [17], 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"?

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)

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)

• 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)