Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Affected articles[edit]

Statement by FCYTravis[edit]

I request that the Arbitration Committee look into whether the allegations about Min Zhu and his relationship with Erin Zhu and his departure from WebEx, made solely by Michael Zeleny (editing as User:Larvatus), are properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. Given that no independent sources are available to confirm or deny some of these allegations, I am concerned that they represent original research and soapboxing by a legally involved party. Furthermore, none of his allegations appear to have gained a broader audience - Zeleny has failed to produce any news articles, magazine reports or other reliable sources that have independently reported his allegations. There appears to be no broader information available other than an article reporting that he protested outside a "WebEx User Conference." There are no independent reports on the allegations of sexual abuse, no independent reports on the insinuation that he left "amid controversy," etc. The only source available that suggests there even is a "controversy" is Zeleny's own blog. The question is, are damaging allegations made by only one person and published only on Usenet and Internet message boards, and not reported by any objective verifiable source, material for encyclopedic inclusion in Wikipedia articles? I am tired of edit-warring on the issue and wish to submit this dispute for a final decision either way. FCYTravis 05:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think this quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons sums it up well - "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." I believe in this case, Wikipedia *is* being used as a primary vehicle, as shown by the absence of even a single objective third-party report on the subject. FCYTravis 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Demi[edit]

I see this as breaking down into a few separate issues:

  1. Usenet posts, forum posts and personal blogs are not suitable sources for anything.
  2. Even if technically accurate (for example, sourced from a deposition transcript), the mere fact that someone has made an accusation "in the public record" or "as part of a court case" (an unrelated, settled court case in which the court does not consider the fact of the accusation) does not inherently make it encyclopedic coverage to be included in an article (in this case Min Zhu). Whether it is or not should be up to the judgment of the community, which is hampered in this case by...
  3. The fact that Larvatus is a disputant in this case, to the extent of causing security problems at a WebEx function, having active and recently-settled lawsuits against the subject, and is using any means possible (including Wikipedia) to publicize his and his ex-girlfriend's accusations against Min Zhu. Wikipedia is not a venue to get one's story more note than it has already, which is what Larvatus is using it for.
  4. FeloniusMonk, in support of Larvatus' theories and accusations, has short-circuited consensus editing. After involving himself on one side of the dispute, he has erroneously accused FCYTravis of vandalism and threatened to block for making edits he disagrees with. Administrators should not use their privileges (or threaten to use them) in support of a particular side in a content dispute in which they are involved.

Demi T/C 06:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeloniousMonk[edit]

This simply is a matter of an eager beaver admin, FCYTravis, and a crew of like-minded editors he assembled - User:Demi and User:FloNight, working together to remove common content found on the WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Scott Sandell, Larvatus and Subrah Iyar articles, using WP:V and any other policy or guideline that suits the moment to AFD or bowdlerize the articles and browbeat User:Larvatus who had the nerve to stand up to them. As FCYTravis states, those articles contain content related to Michael Zeleny (User:Larvatus) in his real world lawsuits against WebEx and its founder, Min Zhu. A reasonably accurate and very detailed description of those real world events can be found here: [1]

The article when I arrived in September [2] provided court case numbers which allowed me to verify much of what it said. User:Larvatus came to me seeking assistance with the article not long after WebEx staff deleted the Min Zhu controversy content from the WebEx article [3] (IP address 64.68.115.166 is assigned to the WebEx corporate network [4]). Since that time User:Larvatus has sought my assistance a number of times, most recently on the 23rd and 24th of December when Larvatus claimed User:FCYTravis was misusing AFD to remove nearly every article he started or serviced and RFC to browbeat him into compliance. He also claimed that User:FCYTravis stepped outside the normal AFD voting processes to ensure that the Larvatus article would be deleted.

I've been advising User:Larvatus on how to deal with those who oppose the Min Zhu controversy content being included in the encyclopedia and his presence on articles he's personally a party to. I've also assisted by wikifying content at WebEx [5], clarifying policy [6] [7], all while trying to keep the content at WebEx accurate, verifiable and complete [8]. In so doing I found User:FCYTravis to be over-zealous to remove content, preferring POV forks [9] and uncited, pov, editorial commentary [10] to a supported, factual, dispassionate description of the events [11].

After becoming familiar with both Larvatus' claim that FCYTravis had bullied him and FCYTravis' history on Larvatus-related articles, I can't say that User:FCYTravis has acted in bad faith or intentionally sought to bully him. But I also can't deny that User:Larvatus has a valid concern, and that this arbitration is premature considering that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Larvatus has only run 3 days (having been filed at 23:50, 22 December by User:Karmafist on behalf of User:FCYTravis per an IRC discussion) and that Larvatus has expressed a willingness to not only abide by WP:V, but stated he will provide notarized transcripts of the depositions supporting the content in question after the holidays [12]. Considering that, my position is that this RFAr is premature. Give Larvatus a genuine chance to produce the supporting evidence, not just 3 days. FeloniousMonk 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Just zis Guy, you know?[edit]

I don't recall being recruited by anybody to this dispute (maybe I came to it from AfD, I can't recall).

I have tried repeatedly to verify the claims made by Zeleny from the sources he cites. These boil down to:

  • records indicating that he has had a legal dispute over contractual matters with Zhu, which is not at issue
  • a Usenet post purportedly from Erin Zhu, posted from servers at Harvard when Erin Zhu would have been 17 years old.

The latter is falsifiable, the former does not speak to the matter under dispute, namely allegations of abuse against Min Zhu. Zeleny has also created a number of other articles on people related to the case, all of which contained the same allegation. Most of these have now, I believe, been deleted as the subjects did not meet WP:BIO.

The problem here is that there is not one reliable source for the allegation of abuse, despite Zeleny having been shown precisely what constitutes a reliable source and repeatedly asked to provide one. Note: that's for the existence of the allegation, not just its truth.

I have asked Zeleny several times to provide some varifiable evidence from trusted external sources. I have said I am happy to accept a police report, a federal "wanted" ad (since Zhu is claimed to be a fugitive from a federal crime), coverage of the abuse (not Zeleny's allegations of the abuse) in any national newspaper. No such evidence is forthcoming. Zeleny's response has been to urge people to buy the transcripts (which may or may not be original research), but this misses the point that if the allegations were true it is scarcely credible that not one single external authority would have picked them up, and no law enforcement agency would have taken any recorded action whatsoever.

FeloniousMonk has said that he will get Zeleny to forward sworn copies of the depositions and will then post them so they can be reviewed. I have said that I would accept that. Zeleny states that "other editors" have obtained the court records and verified the existence of the abuse claims, these "other editors" have not come forward.

In the mean time I have personally removed links to blogs and Usenet posts from articles, because I believe that as falsifiable sources explicitly excluded under WP:RS they are not appropriate auhorities to substantiate a claim.

Given my recent experience with Simon Wessely and Wikipedia's problems with John Seigenthaler Sr. it is clearly insane to allow a self-confessed blowhard with a known agenda against somebody to post serious allegations of this nature which several editors have failed to verify from a single reliable source despite considerable efforts. As I have said before, as soon as we have evidence from some reliable sources, my objections will be dropped. I am still waiting. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Zeleny asserts (repeatedly) that this is research from primary sources: I dispute this. The reliable sources (i.e. those sources which are not blogs, not Usenet and not web forums, per WP:RS) support the existence of his legal dispute with Zhu and WebEx, but there is at this time no verifiable evidence (primary or otherwise) to support the allegation of abuse. I have said right from the outset I want to see some verifiable evidence that these claims have been made by someone other than Zeleny, who is by his own admission and by the evidence provided not neutral in this matter.

Zeleny also states he has talked to others. Up to a point, Lord Copper: he has talked at us, but failed to address our concerns re the unverifiable naturew of the specific claim he makes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The specific allegation of rape[edit]

Larvatus is very insistent on the specific word "rape" (specifically, "child rape"), and this is a key point at issue. There is a record of an interview with Affeld (lawyer acting for Erin Zhu, also at some time for Zeleny) for the rape allegation, but this is specifically refuted in later sworn testimony. In that sworn testimony, part of a case by Dr Izaak Zelony against Erin Zhu, she is pressed on this specific allegation by counsel, consults her legal representatives and responds that she had lied when telling Zeleny of the rape allegation, that no sexual intercourse took place. She affirms that some illicit contact took place, but does not (as far as I can tell) quantify this. This is important because the document which contains the record of the allegation of rape is not as far as I can tell sworn testimony, whereas the document where the allegation is refuted unquestionably is. The refutation is also after the allegation. If arbcom members need the documents I have them, as do FeloniousMonk and FloNight. To my reading, there is substance to an allegation of some form of molesttaion, but none to suggest that (a) any sanction was applied as a result or (b) any case was brought against Zhu by any law enforcement agency or (c) any source other than Zeleny has covered the allegation. Given the complexity of the interpersonal relationships involved I can understand why this might be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Larvatus[edit]

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 ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). It is my impression that my responses are converging towards a consensus with User:Just zis Guy, you know?, who has agreed to drop his objections as soon as we have evidence from some reliable sources ([39]), whereas User:Demi appears to question my qualifications to edit the matters at issue ([40], [41]), while User:FloNight has expressed her willingness and preference to step aside and let other Wikipedians make the editorial decision at issue ([42]). Lastly, it appears that User:FCYTravis has chosen this arbitration, recommended by Wikipedia policy as the last step of dispute resolution, in lieu of answering the question that I directly posed to him on two earlier occasions ([43], [44]).

As a matter of background issues, my contributions to the WebEx article prior to this imbroglio have been limited [45] to supplying references [46] to the articles on other characters involved in the WebEx child rape coverup controversy. I created these articles in good faith, and remain eager to abide by editorial consensus [47], to the point of seeking administrative clarification of my authority to supply officially verified sources for all of my claims in the instant matter. I have notified [48] User:Henryuzi, responsible for originating the relevant part of the WebEx article [49], who appears to have verified its content by reading the referenced files at the Santa Clara Superior Court.

I cannot claim to understand the distinction between verifiable and "falsifiable" sources proposed by User:Just zis Guy, you know? [50]. As a matter of logic, if a factual claim is falsifiable, it is verifiable. Moreover, I cannot accept the legitimacy of his justification for peremptorily whitewashing WebEx as "a respected company with a worldwide presence" [51]. Aside from exemplifying a corporate bias, this approach is flawed in so far as it deliberately disregards the official court record that verifies my claim with the filings contained therein. Subject to an authoritative review of Wikipedia policy on primary sources, this seems to me as legitimate a source of verification as a book kept in a library. Moreover, it is my understanding that 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. Does User:FCYTravis have a problem with this Wikipedia policy statement? If so, what is it? If not, does he 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 he be satisfied in his 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? User:FCYTravis has failed to answer these questions when I posed them to him directly. I am hoping that he will answer them on this occasion.

I have invested a great deal of time and money into corroborating my story. I have no problem with incurring further expenses in the service of satisfying Wikipedia community standards as to their manner of publication and verification. I am happy to submit to administrative arbitration of these standards, if only to forestall the likelihood of wasting valuable resources on serving unsatisfiable agenda of my fellow editors in the absence of a clear published statement of applicable Wikipedia policy.

Larvatus 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

Update: I note that User:FCYTravis has declined to answer my question directly. Instead of doing so, he proffers a quotation from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which fails to address the issue of including verified information concerning a corporate controversy in the article about the corporation at issue. I note that User:FCYTravis has gone on record ([52]0 insisting that the relevant content belongs in the article on Min Zhu, belying his present scruples about biographies of living persons. His request for "a single objective third-party report on the subject" can be easily addressed by his assent to my offer to furnish authenticated copies of judicial rulings sanctioning WebEx for bad faith pleadings in their now aborted attempt to prosecute me for libel in connection with my assertion that they squandered their shareholders' assets on a failed child rape coverup. I will gladly furnish this and other documentary evidence if and when we achieve an editorial consensus on its capacity to resolve this dispute. I am not spending more time and money on certifying public record and disclosing private facts ascertained in judicial and extrajudicial discovery in the service of whimsical and unsatisfiable editorial agenda. Larvatus 02:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

Update redux: We are approaching a consensus with User:Just zis Guy, you know?, based on his agreement ([53]) to act as a party disinterested in what has come to be captioned by him and other editors in the Wikipedia article on WebEx as the Min Zhu/Michael Zeleny controversy, in receiving and reviewing verifiable and reliable external sources for the existence of Erin Zhu's sexual abuse allegation against Min Zhu, for the purpose of making them available for future verification through upload to Wikisource. We appear to have agreed also that in keeping with the referenced policies, my blog suffices to verify the fact of my allegation of WebEx coverup of Min Zhu's child rape of Erin Zhu in the same section. Since WebEx has recently backed out of contesting this fact, I cannot verify the coverup itself with a trial record for the time being. Accordingly, I limit myself to pointing 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. I apologize for having improperly referenced unauthenticated Usenet postings. I will provide official copies of the same documents authenticated by their authors under oath and/or accepted as authentic by a U.S. Superior Court judge. 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 ([54]) editing an article ([55]) 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[reply]

Statement by FloNight[edit]

I was added to this case by FeloniousMonk. If he has specific concerns about my edits, he needs to state them.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and the more recent Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are the standard for Wikipedia articles. It is not appropriate for one party in a legal dispute to author and edit an encyclopedia article on the topic. It is not appropriate for someone to write derogatory remarks about an ex-romantic and business partner in a Wikipedia article. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.

Editors question the suitability of the sentence Person A was driven into an allegedly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. by allegations of incestuous pedophile rape made by Person B, and publicized by Person E Despite editors concerns, Larvatus is not willing to step aside and let the Wikipedian community write these articles.

Making the situation worse, Larvatus will not engage in consensus building. See his comments on 12/23/05 of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Larvatus. I want to emphasize that I am dissatisfied with the manner he treats other editors. Larvatus resorts to remarks that have the potential to inflame the situation. Example 1. There is a whole world outside the Internet, grasshopper. It includes tangible things like court files and evidence contained therein. Those are my primary sources, as referenced herein. Feel free to verify them personally, as others have done. Till then, you have no grounds for criticizing this article. Larvatus 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus and Example 2. The comment in the edit summary Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Larvatus 16:42, December 23, 2005 Larvatus (nurse, heal thyself).

Thank you for your attention to this matter.--FloNight 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Henryuzi[edit]

I was added to this case by Fred Bauder after I volunteered my testimony in support of Larvatus. I am the original contributor of the so-called controversial content to the WebEx article ([56]). I made this contribution after I personally examined many volumes of court filings in the Los Angeles and Santa Clara courthouses from 2004 onwards. I did so in good faith, prompted by the disclosures of corporate wrongdoing, alleged by Mr. Zeleny (Larvatus) on the Usenet and the Yahoo! WEBX discussion board. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been accused of violating Wikipedia editorial guidelines. I ask the arbitration committee to clarify the nature of conduct for which I am threatened with sanctions. Henryuzi 06:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)henryuzi[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/0/0)[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Biographies of living persons[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that the biographies of living persons should be balanced and verifiable, Users are warned to be on the lookout for Malicious editing and take appropriate remedial measures.

Passed 7-0

Involvement in the event[edit]

2) Editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. This may result in the Wikipedia article on the event becoming part of the event. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with.

Passed 7-0

Wikipedia is not a soapbox[edit]

3) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Passed 7-0


Meatpuppets[edit]

5) A user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Passed 7-0

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute centers on the editing of WebEx, a communications company founded by Min Zhu whose behavior with respect to his daughter is the center of the controversy. Peripheral articles relate to subjects connected in some way to the controversy. It is alleged that Michael Zeleny, a former associate of Min Zhu, editing as Larvatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has made inappropriate edits.

Passed 7-0

Tendentious editing by Larvatus[edit]

2) Larvatus has dismissed concerns regarding his aggressive point of view editing with respect to the controversy, see Talk:Min_Zhu#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Passed 7-0


The role of Henryuzi[edit]

5) Henryuzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the user who originally added the controversial material to the article [57]

Passed 7-0

Tendentious editing by Henryuzi[edit]

6) Henryuzi has recently assumed the role taken by Larvatus [58], see Contributions

Passed 7-0

Remedies[edit]

Larvatus banned[edit]

1) Larvatus is banned from editing any article which relates to the controversy involving Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Passed 7-0

Larvatus banned[edit]

1.5) Larvatus is banned from editing any article which relate to WebEx or Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Passed 7-0

Larvatus placed on probation[edit]

2) Larvatus is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0


FeloniousMonk admonished[edit]

4) FeloniousMonk is admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved.

Passed 6-1

FCYTravis admonished[edit]

5) FCYTravis is admonished not to use administrative rollback button in content disputes.

Passed 6-1


Henryuzi banned[edit]

6) Henryuzi is banned from editing any article which relates to the controversy involving Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Passed 7-0

Henryuzi banned[edit]

6.5) Henryuzi is banned from editing any article which relate to WebEx or Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Passed 7-0

Henryuzi placed on probation[edit]

7) Henryuzi is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0

Sockpuppets and meatpuppets[edit]

8) The remedies applied to Henryuzi shall be applied to any additional sockpuppets or meatpuppets which surface.

Passed 7-0

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Larvatus violate any ban he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0

Enforcement by block[edit]

2) Should Henryuzi violate any ban he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0

Documentation of blocks and bans[edit]

Place here the basis of any action taken under the provisions of any remedy under Wikipedia:Probation imposed in this matter. Include a link to a statement of all administrators supporting the action taken.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu&oldid=1037687976"