Talk:Min Zhu/Archive

message: I've removed the bias template as being unjustified. The statements made in the article are backed up by evidence provided in other articles, namely WebEx. That's not to say the article's language is encyclopedic or that it conforms to WP:MOS. It could use some wikifying in those regards, but the claim of bias does not hold up in light of the evidence presented elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how classifying Min Zhu as a rapist or putting him in the incest category is justified.  I have seen the WebEx article.  It contains allegations by a former business partner and, how does one put it?, colorful personality, Mikhail Zeleny.  An allegation is not proof.  Min Zhu is entitled to a presumption of innocence.  So all we have is some allegations made on the internet by Mikhail Z and his former girlfriend, Erin Zhu, about her father.  Does not make him a rapist.  Wikipedia should not leap to judge. Lao Wai 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The listed categories are derived from allegations made by Erin Zhu in public fora, private correspondence, and sworn testimony. While it is true that such allegations cannot amount to proof, Wikipedia categories make no such distinctions. For instance, Pete Townshend is listed in the category of Child sex offenders despite never having been convicted of any such offense. Larvatus 12:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference there is that Pete Townshend admitted it.  It was true.  What we have here is two damaged individuals making unproven allegations against a third party, without testing them in a court of law, which that party, to the best of my knowledge, rejects.  It is not that they do not amount to proof, it is that there is no reason to think they are true at all.  I do not see any justification for Wikipedia reproducing what are disgusting allegations about Min Zhu without some reason to do so. I would go further and question the whole point on this article - what is it doing on Wikipedia at all except as part of some vengeance scheme on the part of someone who does not like Mr Zhu?  Mr Zhu remains entitled not only to the presumption of innocence, but to be treated with the minimum of decency.  The allegations ought to go. Lao Wai 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. Pete Townshend admitted nothing of the sort. Nor was he convicted as a child sex offender. As stated in the Wikipedia article in question, the offenses were merely alleged. The police cautioned him in connection with images found on his computer. This cautioning resulted in his being placed in the official child sex offender registry. Larvatus 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not.  He admitted he had viewed child porn and he had.  I did not say he was convicted. I said he admited what he did. There is a world of difference between Townsend and Dr Zhu. 220.233.169.39 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that "there is a world of difference" between a man inducted in the category of child sex offenders for admitting having viewed (but neither acquired nor possessed) child porn, and the man so qualified on the basis of his refusing to deny his daughter's allegations of deflowering and repeatedly raping her, to the extent of both of them fleeing the United States and instructing their lawyers to refuse to accept judicial summons for their questioning on that issue? Larvatus 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've read the same evidence at the WebEx article you have, and I feel the categories are easily justified. There, I see that Min Zhu was accused of molestation in sworn testimony by his own daughter. Min Zhu settled the suit brought by his daughter for molestation out of court; it was settled using WebEx shares. And particularly damning, Min Zhu did not contest Zeleny's allegations in his suit concerning his rape of his daughter, but instead chose to side-step the issue. Absent an actual conviction or at least a police report filed alleging molestation, being accused in sworn testimony by his own daughter is as convincing as evidence gets. Taken with Zhu's subsequent actions, I think the categories are justified. FeloniousMonk 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that Z alleged that Min Zhu was accused of molestation in sworn testimony by his own daughter?  Where is this alleged testimony?  We do not know Min Zhu settled the suit with his daughter.  The article says "apparently".  So no evidence of that either.  I can't imagine why a Father might not pursue his daughter for such allegations but it is noticeable that he has pursued Z's claims by getting Yahoo to delete them.  It is not damning that a Father might not want to drag his family through the courts in such a demeaning manner.  Especially if he is a rather old fashioned Chinese man.  It is hardly convincing at all.  There is no actual conviction, as you point out, not even a police report, as you also point out.  There is no real evidence of this at all apart from comments Erin Zhu is supposed to have made to Mikhail Zeleny who is, well, notoriously litigious so I won't finish that statement.  Find me some sworn testimony.  All Zhu did was leave the country.  Again for an old fashioned Chinese male avoiding more damaging publicity is hardly an admission.  It cannot, and should not, be taken as an admission of guilt.  So what we have, as I said, is the unsubstantiated, unproven allegations of two damaged people against a third.  Who is unconvicted and uncharged.  Should Wikipedia be in the business of making such vicious character smears without evidence?  Why does this article even exist?  What is the public interest here? Lao Wai 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how your allegation of my damaged nature bears on the issue at hand. As to the facts, the referenced case court files contain documentary evidence and sworn testimony of Min Zhu settling not only his daughter's claim of child rape, but also the subsequent claim of her lawyer alleging fraud in paying hush money to his daughter under the table so as to cut him out on his contingency fee. The relevant parts of the transcript of Erin Zhu's deposition have been filed as court exhibits. In addition to me, Erin Zhu made her comments to numerous other parties who so swore in their declarations. Her letters to Blixa Bargeld, found in the same files and reproduced verbatim on my web site [], tell of her father "devour[ing] her body with his lust". Her Usenet postings, accessible via Google Groups search [] and also linked on my web site [], complain of Min Zhu deflowering her. By leaving the country, Min Zhu did not avoid any damaging publicity. He merely failed to contest the allegations still being made against him in numerous public fora. As of this writing, WebEx is about to testify as to the reasons for his departure. As I explained to Subrah Iyar [], this testimony will involve thorough examination of corporate policies responsible for decisions to spend shareholder resources on groundless gainsaying of Erin Zhu's allegations against her father. And yet, neither Min Zhu nor WebEx have dared to bring a legal action contesting Erin Zhu's charges of sexual molestation against Min Zhu. In fact, according to their lawyers, both Min Zhu and Erin Zhu have moved to China, and are unwilling to accept the service of deposition subpoenas for further testimony concerning to his sexual abuse of her, as demanded for the purposes of ongoing litigation between me and WebEx. In essence, they are refusing to contest under oath the facts of her rape by Min Zhu, consistently recounted by Erin Zhu over the span of sixteen years. These facts, witnessed by public records of Erin Zhu's complaints, are of obvious general interest in so far as they impinge on matters of corporate governance of a publicly traded corporation and public trust in entrepreneurial ventures funded by NEA on behalf of Min Zhu. Larvatus 01:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It bears on the issue at hand if Wikipedia is being used to further a personal dispute with no public interest whatsoever.  Why does Wikipedia have three pages discussing this issue?  So we are still at the point where there is no evidence, just some allegations.  Dr Zhu clearly did limit the amount of damaging publicity, but that is hardly the point.  It is not a confession.  Wikipedia should not take it as a confession.  There are any number of sensible and justifiable reasons why a man might not want to fight with his daughter in court over allegations of rape, especially if he is a slightly old fashioned Chinese gentleman, and many of them are perfectly innocent.  The fact that Dr Zhu does not drag his family name through the mud is irrelevant to this article.  And now Ms Zhu has also decided not to pursue this allegations.  Go figure.  So we have a girl who was involved with you, and at that time, and subsequently, made some allegations she does not wish to pursue.  She is not trying to have her father arrested in the PRC, nor have him extradited.  Were her recollections "recovered" memories by any chance?  This looks more and more like a vendetta without any public interest at all to me.  The WebEx article contains all the material that any public interest might require.  There is no need for three separate articles.  And as Dr Zhu is not a convicted rapist or child sex offender, there is no justification to include those categories. In fact I think the whole article ought to go.  220.233.169.39 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To this day, the American public continues to be invited to invest in ventures controlled by Min Zhu. As explained in the attached article, these ventures are no longer limited to WebEx. This fact suffices to establish legitimate public interest in his felonious background, confirmed by his daughter's sworn testimony. As to the issue of relevant categories, until and unless Wikipedia recognizes a separate classification for allegations of child rape and incest, the existing identification will do the job. Needless to say, nothing but the likelihood of being served a subpoena in the ongoing legal actions should be stopping you from registering as an editor and performing these tasks yourself. Larvatus 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias template

message: I have removed the libelous category templates. Min Zhu has not been convicted of any crimes, nor has he admitted to any crimes, therefore to categorize him as a "rapist" and "child sex offender" is highly out of order. If you would like to create a category for "Alleged rapists" - I invite you to do so. But to categorize someone as a "rapist" who has not been convicted of anything is absolutely not in keeping with verifiability standards. FCYTravis 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: I have removed the accusation and the "sources" which supported it. LiveJournal and usenet postings are not "sources" for such a serious accusation--if a newspaper or other reputable source covers a court case on the matter, then it could be repeated. Recent events have taught us to be strict with sources, especially for biographical subjects, and it is not Wikipedia's job to provide a vehicle for people to get wider play for their accusations than they can get from blogging services and online forums. Demi T/C 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegation

message: * Calendar information of Santa Clara Superior Court Case Number CV-809286, styled Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx, whose publicly accessible filings contain a documentary record of Erin Zhu's sworn complaints about her rape by her father Min Zhu.	 
This is not verifiable, we do not have access to the papers and only have the word of someone who acknowledges they are not neutral as to that content.
* Erin Zhu's complaints about her rape by her father, attested in public record on Usenet 	
Usenet is not public record, anyone can say anything on Usenet.
* Another complaint by Erin Zhu about her rape by her father, reproduced verbatim from public record in Santa Clara superior Court, Case Number CV809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx 	 
This is not verifiable, we do not have access to the papers and only have the word of someone who acknowledges they are not neutral as to that content.
* Erin Zhu promises that she will not be a monster like her father and complains that he devoured her body with his lust, reproduced verbatim from public record in Santa Clara superior Court, Case Number CV809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx
This is not verifiable, we do not have access to the papers and only have the word of someone who acknowledges they are not neutral as to that content.  Also the link description is grossly POV.
:All of the above is verifiable, and in fact has been verified by other editors at the courthouse. Anyone can view the referenced filings and court rulings in person, or pay for official copies. Your unwillingness or inability to make an effort or spend money to confirm the underlying facts is immaterial. Larvatus 16:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be original research, and in any case only an allegation. All you need to do is link the trusted secondary sources which have reported this.  Police reports, newspaper reports etc. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:No original research expressly endorses reliance on information collected from primary and secondary sources, classified as "source-based research". You have no basis for arbitrarily disqualifying judicial rulings and sworn testimony on the basis of your unwillingness or inability to follow other editors by verifying them. Larvatus 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And WP:RS explicitly excludes blogs and Usenet as sources, which are the links I've removed.  Do please name the other editors who are in possession of the transcripts you mention, thus far none have come forward to substantiate the claim you make. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk has repeatedly substantiated the claims at issue. By now, you are equally well positioned to do so. Please review your objections on the basis of new evidence. Larvatus 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious links 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration accepted

message: Moved disputed text for discussion and consensus. Please do not re-insert without discussion. This will prevent 3RR war, blocks, and bans.--FloNight 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you disputing in the above? Larvatus 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I put that in, so I'd quite like to know :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides breaking three or more WP policy/guidelines, it does not accurately depict all the actions of all the main parties involved in the legal cases. Need to choose my words carefully so someone will not charge me with making a personal attack on a fellow editor. Not saying that Larvatus would, but an editor not familiar with his life might misconstrue my statements. Also, identifying his daughter by name is below mainstream media standards. I’ll work on wording to replace the text. I’ll put it here first for consensus.--FloNight 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Larvatus 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I quoted it to you on Dec. 23, 2005 02:02--FloNight 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors? Larvatus 00:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not reveal the names of sexual abuse victims, child or otherwise, unless information is reported in the mainstream media. When the mainstream media reports any abuse, I will be the first person to put it in the article.--FloNight 02:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion to this effect has no policy force. Please cite a published Wikipedia policy or concede that your feelings in this matter lack any such basis and revert your unilateral elisions to content previously established by others. 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Larvatus, during the writing of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, I tried to get my fellow Wikipedians to remove the section that said incorrect biographical information must stay in WP if it appears in a mainstream media article. (From WP:BLP For example, the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is published, this is verifiable and hence usable.) I said the New York Times was not the best source for a birth date. I pointed out that the best source for a birth date was a birth certificate, with drivers license or other government license almost as good. I argued in favor of letting the subject of the article correct misinformation by submitting birth certificate, marriage license, etc. I was told it simple was not practical now. The opinion of the majority of editors is that this practice will allow more bad information in than it keeps out. They want the mainstream media to screen or investigate for them. I disagree with their pov. That is the reason I volunteered to read your court records. If the records you provided gave rock-solid evidence of a child-rape, I would go to these people and argue to change policy or make an exception. Larvatus, the records are non-conclusive. I'm not going to argue for an exception in order to put in a recanted allegation of child-rape.--FloNight 04:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are continuing to avoid the issue. The truth of Erin Zhu's rape allegations against Min Zhu is not relevant to the passage that you have unilaterally censored. Only the facts of these allegations having been made by her need to be asserted. These facts have now been verified with source-based research at your disposal. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except, as has been pointed out multiple times, there is no substantive allegation of rape only of molestation.  She has stated on oath that she lied to you about the rape. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  RfA! 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you read Erin Zhu's draft complaint against Min Zhu for childhood sexual abuse based on the enclosed interview notes? How does that fall short of a substantive allegation of rape? Larvatus 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and her subsequent sworn testimony where she states that she was not raped, that no intercourse took place.  If she swears on oath that she was not raped, specifically in response to questioning on that exact word, I really can't see how we can say she was. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  RfA! 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are neither affirming nor denying that Erin Zhu was raped. Can we get past this point already? Our job is to report her allegations, as contained in verified documents extracted from court filings. Please confirm your understanding of this distinction, and your agreement with, or dissent from, my formulation of our editorial agenda. Larvatus 08:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Despite my best efforts, and I really did try, this information is not encyclopedic and doens't belong in WP. I wrote David Hager and will write or endorse similar material about this person if based on verifiable facts. See below for more.--FloNight 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed text

message: Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are relevant to their notability, based on credible sources and do not overwhelm the article. Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractors views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. Be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view.
Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable, e.g. plagiarism by an artist, fraud by a scientist, doping use by a sports person, etc. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence regarding the subject of the article specifically.
--FloNight 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP, written to clarify these issues, insists that there be verifiable, direct evidence that relates to the persons notability. That does not exist about the issue we are discussing. There is no blue dress! There was no lawsuit! Zhu has never been charged in civil or criminal court! Sensational false allegations do not belong in an article. No evidence of any truths, only many different versions of disputed allegations. Only if the mainstream media or the SEC launches a full investigation will the truth be known. Until then our hands are tied. This is not encyclopedic.--FloNight 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Court documents are at least as verifiable as primary sources as an article in The Nation  is as a secondary source in a matter never brought in any judicial venue. You have seen proof of Erin Zhu accusing Min Zhu of having raped her, in an interview with her lawyers. You have seen her state under oath that Min Zhu "molested" her, short of intercourse. These allegations should be incorporated in the article under discussion, just as similar allegations have been incorporated in the article on David Hager that you cited above. In the meantime, please abstain from unilateral removal of content and oracular pronouncements on the truth or falsehood of allegations at issue. Larvatus 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My fellow editor from California, there is no harm done to anyone if the text stays out of the article. There is potential harm to the Zhu family, Wikipedian editors and readers if false sexual abuse allegations are inserted in the text. Let’s wait until the mainstream media investigates and reports. Fellow editor from KY, --FloNight 02:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please recall that we are not proposing to pronounce on the factual basis of the allegations at issue. Speaking as the recipient of independently witnessed and documented threats and menaces visited upon me on the behalves and in the names of Min Zhu and WebEx, let's not wait for anything. Your proposal is meant to harm me and any other recipients of the Zhu family values. Your deference to "the mainstream media" is not grounded in any Wikipedia policy. By contrast, court records are specifically recognized therein as a valid basis for source-based research. In short, you are not giving any objective reason for your censorship attempts. All you offer is your feelings. Larvatus 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Larvatus, we simply disagree. You provided a large number of files, and I read them all. We came to different conclusions. That is one reason it is original research, in my book. We had to research, analyze, synthesize, and report. If it was straight forward we wouldn't be stuck in this Wikihell going over the same points again and again. Your frustrated. I'm frustrated. This is not my fault or yours.--FloNight 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no simple disagreement. My position has cited support in the definition of source-based research. Once again, your "book" appears to contain nothing but your feelings. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My fellow editor from California, start at the top of the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Larvatus, then read all the comments on the Rfc page. Then read the talk pages of WebEx and Min Zhu. Next go to the Rfar statements, then read the Rfar evidence. While your doing that I will pull out the dates of the threads of Wikipedia English email list where this has been discussed for 5 years. And I will look up all the dates of the major re-writes of NPOV, RS, NOR, and V. This was discussed by WP community each time. If you finish before I do, read the talk page of WP:BLP. WP:AGF is an code of conduct for one's self. I think every one in this dispute is doing a good job of WP:AGF and said so. No 3RR, no temp blocks or bans. I want to keep it that way. Fellow editor from KY, --FloNight 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Larvatus asks a valid and necessary question, and you seem to be dodging it. On exactly which policy are you basing your unilateral censorship of relevant and necessary information? Information I'll remind you that is freely available to anyone as part of the public record. Your insistance on protecting Erin Zhu's identity is admirable, but about 14 years too late and not a concern apparently share by her . FeloniousMonk 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll thank FloNight for assuming that I've done my homework before asking my question, and for answering it forthwith. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Larvatus, are you saying that the text I removed from the article is accurate? The best explanation of the events? --FloNight 10:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am requesting that you cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Your tirade in the following section conspicuously avoids any mention of support in Wikipedia policy. Please revert the article forthwith. Larvatus 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP]]Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors

message: V, RS, NPOV, NOR, BIO
--FloNight 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the point made by FeloniousMonk. FloNight, please explain your application of the policies that you have cited to the matter at hand. Larvatus 08:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. As you know, I can not fully explain my position in this forum. In so doing, I would make statements that an uninformed editor may think is a personal attack on Larvatus. That is one of several difficulties raised by someone editing a Wikipedian articles about themselves.--FloNight 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your faith is not at issue. Only the soundness of your policy application is in question. Please explain your application of Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 19:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies that determine type & quality of material that is acceptable

message: When a case goes to trial, both sides of the case have the legal right to gather evidence to present to the jury. Therefore, at least in theory, the full fact of the case should be available. The jury listens to the witnesses, looks at the evidence, and then retires to the jury room to deliberate. The jury analyzes the material and makes a determination. Often, a jury must consider to two or more competing versions of the same events. During deliberation the jury must make judgments about the credibility of witnesses and evidence.  The verdict is based on these judgments. After the conclusion of the trial, often, the public and the media have access to court records. The court records reflect the whole process. Sometimes the public has access to the jury’s pov from media interviews.
When a case settles before trial, the case legal records are not complete. It is unlikely that a full version of the witnesses and evidence exists. When a threatened lawsuit settles before being filed then the record is very bare, often intentionally. 
When one party to the case publishes the incomplete records to make a point, that is Cherry picking for advocacy journalism. That is not encyclopedic research and writing, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --FloNight 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your effort to censor the article continues apace. Your reasoning for justification of keeping Erin Zhu's allegation of childhood molestation against her father out of the article only works as to truth of those allegations, not that the allegations were made, which is what this article did until your censorship . The article did not say that Min Zhu molested his daughter, only that his daughter claims he did, for which, her draft complaint and other public record documents are perfectly acceptable by meeting the standard of WP:V and WP:RS. Stop throwing up roadblocks to relevant and necessary content. Looking over your actions on this page, it's becoming increasingly apparent to me at least that you've censored the article on baseless grounds and that now you're intentionally obstructing the return of verifiable and necessary information to the article. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk, please stop making personal attacks. The fact that someone has submitted a pleading in a legal case is not some magical invocation that requires Wikipedia to repeat it. Whether a piece of information is "necessary" is up to editorial consensus, and it would be nice to see comments from you in support of finding that consensus and sounding less like demagoguery. The fact that the matter was settled, that a court was not required to rule on the veracity of the claims in question, is germane in determining the information's verifiability and significance. Demi T/C 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've assumed good faith, but when FloNight resists multiple calls to cite the policy that specifically justifies her unilateral censorship and follows it up instead with what can only be described accurately as  tendentious obstructionism, there's only so much questionable activity WP:AGF can cover. Obstructionism and unilateral censorship, both done outside of policy are by necessity acts of bad faith. FloNight has yet to budge an inch on either of these points, and her actions show every indication that she intends to continue with this line of reasoning and action. Consensus only works when all involved participate in good faith, and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, or so the saying goes... FeloniousMonk 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Rfc supported leaving this information out of the articles. I thought that was community consensus. We need to get more editors involved. The problems is that you have to read 500 pages of legal files to understand this case.--FloNight 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Felonious, that is unworthy.  I see no evidence that FloNight has any brief for Min Zhu or WebEx; it seems to me that each of us is is acting out of genuine concern to do the right thing, be it "exposing a monster" or "protecting a legally innocent party".  The only one whose motives are open to question is Larvatus, a fact he openly admits.  At this stage I would suggest we wait and see what the Arbcom has to say since it seems unlikely that we will reach consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I genuinely hope you are right and I am wrong. Agreed, let's have the arbcomm decide, on both issues. FeloniousMonk 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cherry picking]] incomplete legal files

message: FM, I believe that Just zis  Guy, you know? has suggested that we leave the article text alone until after the Arbcom case. That would be my preference also. But, I suggest using the following text if you feel additional information must be added. It's neutral, factual, and uses sources that are probably within WP:RS. 
 ==Legal dispute with Zeleny==
 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." [2] This was  amid a spate
 of lawsuits between Zhu, WebEx and their former business partner Michael Zeleny for various torts, 
 including breach of contract and defamation. [3] Additionally, Zeleny is engaged in a campaign to
 alert the public that Zhu diverted WebEx assets to settle a childhood abuse claim made by his
 daughter, Zeleny's former domestic and business partner. Zhu and his daughter have denied these
 claims in court records. No mainstream media have investigated and reported these matters.
FM, I suspect that you want more details about the abuse. My concern is that the legal records are too complex to summarize in a few sentences. A skewed view of this complicated situation will be the outcome. I would like to see and make suggestions about changes that you make. (I did read hundreds of pages of legal records!) But, I'll leave the final wording up to you.--FloNight 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks fine. Go ahead and put in it the article. Might try to put daughters claims and denial in a sentence. Will leave on talk page, if I do. I promise, nothing suicidal! :) FloNight 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can add a sentence about her statements. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm leaning against it. Makes it too long. --FloNight 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, we'll go with this as it is. FeloniousMonk 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be removing the npov and fa templates now as well. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no objections, I'd like to change the subheading from "Retirement controversy" to "Zhu/Zeleny controversy" or "Zeleny controversy." Retirement controversy is not terribly accurate and reads weasely. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like my original heading *Legal dispute with Zeleny*. Is there a controversy? FloNight 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's been a little too much controversy here and at the Yahoo! Finance messageboard for my taste... ;-) We could go with your version. FeloniousMonk 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Quiet as a church mouse now, though. --FloNight 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I am happy with the text as it is right now (per timestamp) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  13:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that Zeleny's allegations be documented by references to the primary sources such as his blog and third party notices of the events at WebEx's user conference. I also believe that the nature of Erin Zhu's rape allegations should be spelled out in a concise manner. Henryuzi 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that you read through the history and archives of this article to see wht that is unlikely to be acceptable in that form. Guy 09:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal is made with reference to the history and archives of this article. I contributed to the content of Wikipedia article on WebEx long before you started editing it. I made my contributions by personally verifying the claims that Mr. Zeleny made on the Yahoo! WEBX discussion board. I am as familiar with the background as any of my successors. Henryuzi 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article text about Zhu and Zeleny dispute