Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence

message: FloNight, FeloniousMonk, and Just zis Guy, you know? were emailed 50 pdf files with information about Larvatus legal dispute with the Zhu family. I asked for the records, so I plan on reviewing them. I'm not sure how they change  the issues in this case, though. Past uncivility, POV edits,  article ownership wouldn't change. Mostly, they will help decide future article content. If Larvatus and FeloniousMonk step back and let the Wikipedia community decide, we will make the right decision. Community consensus, in my book, is a key WP philosophy. --FloNight 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated on the project page, over the past two weeks, I have voluntarily and unilaterally recused myself from editing any articles related to my differences with WebEx and the Zhus. That said, your attempt to appoint yourself as an arbitrator of community consensus to the point of excluding editors that disagree with your position, is not supported by any standard of this community. You have no special prerogatives over me or FeloniousMonk. Larvatus 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing that FloNight has unilaterally taken to censoring the Min Zhu article of relevant and necessary information  after having received the court files while refusing to give us the policy on which she bases her unilateral censorship , I have my doubts that "we (she) will make the right decision." I'll also point out that the shoe is on the other other foot when it comes to claims of article ownership now. The information FloNight insists on deleting , that Erin brought a formal complaint against her father for molestation, is factual and verifiable  (pg 24) and freely available to anyone as part of the public record. The particulars of the molestation were already long available publicly, having been published by Erin on the usenet in 1991  and recounted more recently in an interview conducted by her attorney in the above-mentioned action taken against her father  (pg 36). This sort of unilateral censorship of relevant content necessary for a complete and accurate article under the guise of an ersatz victim's rights pseudo-policy while pointing the finger at others is not going to resolve issue. Factual, dispassionate reporting is. That's all I've asked for in this. FeloniousMonk 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to note that I have decided not to edit Min Zhu for the duration of the arbitration committee case, just in case FeloniousMonk took my decision as acquiescence for the "consensus" to include Larvatus' allegations in the article. Similarly, many editors tend to avoid contentious articles involved in a current case of arbitration. So it's probably mistaken to place much stock in any "consensus" supposedly existing now, even if it does consist of three whole editors, and equally mistaken to try to censure FloNight for disagreeing with it. Demi T/C 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

message: 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 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "LARVATUS"'S EDITS CHECK OUT