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)

Cross-claim

Given that I may have trouble reaching the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 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