Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27 Dead Kennedys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-27 Dead Kennedys 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Case closed 1.4 Evidence 1.5 Compromise offers 1.6 Comments by others 1.7 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-27 Dead Kennedys

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Bob 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Dead Kennedys, California Uber Alles, Alternative Tentacles, Holiday in Cambodia, East Bay Ray, Live at the Deaf Club, Jello Biafra

Who's involved?

LGagnon, Cjmarsicano

What's going on?

The above entries have many incorrect facts and biased comments and opinions. Users LGagnon and Cjmarsicano are advocates for Jello Biafra and appear to be using Wikipedia to deride the other three members of the rock band Dead Kennedys - East Bay Ray, Klaus Flouride and D.H. Peligro.

What would you like to change about that?

Correct the facts and eliminate the bias.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

lbox667@sbcglobal.net

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Well, if this works out.

...

[edit] Mediator response

Hello, my name is Bottesini, and I will be your mediator for this dispute. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am having a hard time gathering what the dispute is about. It seems to me that you are seeking disciplinary action, which the Mediation Cabal cannot provide. Please provide evidence for the mediation. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly something to start with. I'll begin making sense of it. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed

My verdict is that a ongoing compromise needs to be sustained between both parties. If this cannot be realized, then the article will be reverted to a primitive state, and a NPOV rewrite will take place. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Thank you taking a look at this issue. Are you recommending formal mediation? Some of the evidence:

1) The two Users in question are biased by their own statements and appear to be vandalizing in this case: Lgagno admits “…I may be a Biafra fan, and I may think you [refering to East Bay Ray] are a sellout...” - Talk:Dead_Kennedys

He also lists Jello Biafra as a Hero on his User page - User:LGagnon

Cjmarsicano says “…If it's really EBR, I'm surprised he was able to lift his head away from his coke mirror, the prick.” - User_talk:LGagnon

2) They apparently didn’t even consider that the edits might be true. For example, in the Jello Biafra entry they allow statements to be published on Wikipedia that are libel, “Biafra … claims that he is not receiving any royalties on the rereleases of their albums or "posthumous" live albums licensed to other labels by the Decay Music.” This is serious defamation, Biafra’s has cashed his checks - http://www.deadkennedys.com/check.htm

I'd just like to point out that saying this is "serious defamation" is a fallacy--Biafra did indeed claim this--the posted checks on your website doesn't change that. They also say more about Biafra's tactics--since he claims that much of those royalties he spent to pay off legal fees. However "serious defamtion" makes it seem like the Dead Kennedys current line-up is a less than reliable source, since they represent one side of a clearly two-sided issue.

But doesn't it say, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_lib that Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" are defamation per se? -- Bob

If quotes from Biafra are defaming you, take it up with him. We're not responsible for what other people say. It is perfectly legal for a writer to quote someone else's claims, whether they are true or not; it is merely reporting what the person said, not claiming that they are right. -- LGagnon 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is Biafra’s statement, then could you please verify where you got it from? It also seems that if you can verify the quote and want to use it, to be neutral, you would also report Dead Kennedys response to it. But you didn’t, which again demonstrates the bias and unreliability of the articles. -- User:Dead-kennedys

I did verify quotes. Didn't you notice the References section? You know, the section you've added nothing to? Some of the things you tried to delete have sources there. As for the former DKs' opinions, I'd like to see a reliable source for it. Then, their opinions will be added, and they will be added neutrally and without deleting Biafra's side of the argument. -- LGagnon 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

3) In the Dead Kennedys entry, and in several others, they allow the court case to be she/he said when in fact it is decided - http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=17130 http://www.deadkennedysnews.com/news061803.htm If the court case must be talked about, it would seem that the final results are what matter and would be reported by a neutral person. It certainly is not fair for Klaus Flouride , D.H. Peligro and East Bay Ray to have the go on trial again in Wikipedia.

I should point out that the American Justice system is not, and never has been, and likely never will be the do-all, end-all in any given issue; saying that the justice system by default represents truth is a logical fallacy.

In regards to a neutral point of view, do you have evidence the jury and judges were not neutral?

There is a more neutral bio of Dead Kennedys from the ROUGH GUIDE TO ROCK by Andy Lewis at - http://www.deadkennedys.com/history.htm

4) They also deleted East Bay Ray’s credits for starting Alternative Tenetacles in the Dead kennedys article and they also deleted his credits in the Est Bay Ray article for his production work and work on other projects - http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3d9fs33ba3rg~T1 http://www.guitarplayer.com/story.asp?sectioncode=8&storycode=13455

This allmusic.com article also demonstrates what a more neutral point of view might look like, this view is lacking in all the Wikipedia entries in question and any attempts to edit them for balance are reverted by the above two, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_Kennedys&action=history

The list goes on. So formal mediation is the way to go? Thank you for your time.

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

I've looked over the extensive edits that Dead-kennedys placed within 24 hours. All the edits are highly questionable, as that they are all dealing with a single subject with related branches. And while a couple of points are valid, the majority of edits are, without a doubt POV.

Perhaps the best place for this, is in the discussion boards.Rsm99833 04:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the band, no matter what state it has been in regarding lead signers. I'm also a fan of AT (I have been to AT shows and I wear an AT hoodie everywhere I go). I just want to clear that up for a second, because I do not represent one side over another one.

I think that its really unfortunate that Bob edited the article the way he did, but there may be some serious things wrong with it that we don't know about concerning facts. I seriously hope that either side can look past their own motives and get something that they can agree on instead of verbally threatening each other. Maybe they should all kicked out of editing it? And maybe we can get sources for some things, too. --66.106.60.11 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This person is right, the articles were edited with very bad Wikipedia etiquette and blunders were made, I apologize to everyone for that. Please forgive the naivety. But attacks on my ineptness are not the central issue, the central issue is that the articles are promoting one POV only and do not show the other side. Is there any interest in a balanced viewpoint? -- Bob

Yes, there is huge interest in a balaneced viewpoint. That's why it was already there before you committed your astroturfing.

Your "sources" are questionable, as I have already clearly and elequently stated elsewhere on this page — and in my opinion, so is your identity. --CJ Marsicano 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ray, I've tried to include the other side. There are statements that show your side, which were there before you tried to edit it. I added those before because I took the NPOV rule into account. You did not, which is the problem. Provide sources, add them neutrally (try using MLA format so I don't have to fix it up for you), and don't delete Jello's point of view (or anything else sourced). -- LGagnon 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous person: We don't ban people just because there's a dispute. And there are sources - lots of them, which I have added all over the article. You sound a lot like Ray with your denial that the References section exists. -- LGagnon 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I guess I wasn't logged in. --Psycho78m 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

My name is CJ Marsicano, and I am one of the parties being falsely accused of being a "pro-Biafra advocate" by "Bob".

The complaintant in question has directed all of his energies to revising the articles in question in what appears to be an anti-Biafra viewpoint. He has edited no other articles on Wikipedia. I believe his choice of screen names greatly reflects his lack of neutrality. On many of the entires, Biafra's side of the story on Mutiny On The Bay and Live At The Deaf Club, two live archival releases compiled and issued without Biafra's participation, input, or consent, were deleted entirely. "Bob"'s activities are clearly astroturfing. Whether he is Raymond "Easy Bay Ray" Pepperell Jr., or someone working on behalf of the guitarist, is unknown. The Biafra/Dead Kennedys articles are much more neutral than "Bob" would like; his actions over the past few days and his "edits" are far from neutral as they favored the other three members of the group.

Whether the case was found in favor of the other three band members is pretty much irrelevant. It was a controversial trial in punk rock and music circles. When the initial verdict was announced, many people I talked to were shocked that Biafra had lost the case. (One of the arguments the Dead Kennedys partnership's lawyer used as an argument was that Biafra could not have possibly written any of the songs because he didn't play an instrument or read sheet music. By that idiotic standard, George Martin should have sued the Beatles.) In any event, "Bob"'s revisions and deletions were far from neutral. Both sides of the story were aleady represented neutrally by LGagnon, myself, and the other contributors to the articles.

One of the sites that "Bob" uses for a reference, deadkennedysnews.com, is a one-sided, anti-Biafra smear site. I do not believe that it should be used for factual material. It would be like using supermarket tabloids as an exclusive or primary source of info for articles on Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson.

"Bob" revised credits on the California Uber Alles entry to claim that East Bay Ray had produced the original 1979 single. I own a copy of the original single, and the entire band was credited, along with the engineer, with producing the record, not East Bay Ray alone. The production credits are equally erroneous on Plastic Surgery Disasters, which was credited on the original release to the band, Thom Wilson, and Geza X. On the article as it stands as of this writing, only Pepperell and Wilson are credited. Pepperell has been fond of falsely taking full credit for producing all of the band's albums in recent interviews, like the Guitar Player interview "Bob" links to in his "evidence" response, even though the credits on the albums - even on the Manifesto reissues - say otherwise (the last two Dead Kennedys albums were produced by Jello Biafra alone.)

"Bob" changed songwriting credits to reflect the unofficial revisionist credits created by Raymond Pepperell Jr. and printed in the liner notes of Dead Kennnedys rereleases by Manifesto, Cleopatra, etc. The true record of who actually wrote and composed most of the Dead Kennedys material can be had by searching for Jello Biafra's name at BMI.com. None of the court cases ordered Decay Music or BMI to alter the songwriting credits of record. Essentially, the other Dead Kennedys - Pepperell, Geoffrey "Klaus Flouride" Lyall, and Darren "D.H. Peligro" Henley - are trying to take 3/4 (or maybe 4/4 for all we know) songwriting credit for Biafra's compositions (not to mention compositions in which original drummer Bruce "Ted" Slesigner and original second guitarist 6025 were co-composers of the music, since the credits on the Manifesto and Cleopatra rereleases credit the music only to "Dead Kennedys") when they only contributed arrangements.

"Bob" references checks made out to Mr. Biafra but only the fronts have been reproduced. Therefore, there is no public evidence that Biafra endorsed and cashed the checks. Pepperell, through DeadKennedys.com, claimed that he sent Biafra test pressings, cover proofs, CDRs, etc. to Biafra for his approval via FedEx, but has not provided evidence of same. Biafra has stated that he had no knowledge of the content of two DVDs the band issued since 2002, or the Live At The Deaf Club album, until they were released, and that the only thing he recieved regarding Mutiny Of The Bay was a cassette of the final mix - by which time the album was already out in Europe! (The Dead Kennedys' Manifesto releases were released in the United States on September 11, 2001.)

As for the remark about Raymond Pepperell Jr.'s alleged cocaine use, this has been a strong rumor for several years. I am hoping that the rumors are not true, although their continuing persistence (and "Bob"'s reaction to it) suggest otherwise. In any case, the statement was made in Carlin-esque jest. I could have also easily made a joke about our astroturfer being the preferred deity of the Church of the SubGenius. That having been said, the possibility of Easy Bay Ray being an anti-Biafra astroturfer on Wikipedia angered me to no end.

While the drug rumors cannot be proven, some other facts regarding Pepperell's behavior over the years have come to light. Most recently, on an Alternative Tentacles podcast, Biafra mentioned that Pepperell had been pushing the rest of the band to sign with Polydor Records in 1980, a move Biafra did not want to make and was prepared to quit the band over. Polydor balked when they were told that the next single the band was planning was "Too Drunk To Fuck". Biafra then mentioned that Pepperell called him while Biafra was in Texas recording with Mojo Nixon - not to say hello, but to yell at Biafra for an hour and accuse Biafra of "ruining [Ray's] life because we didn't sign with Polydor".

For the record, I covered the Dead Kennedys case for a now-defunct online music magazine, Project X, in 2001. I attempted to get both sides of the story for the article and was able to talk to Biafra but not with Pepperell or the other former band members, as Pepperell refused or ignored all e-mail requests - this forcing me to rely on earlier articles on the case and the ex-Kennedys' press releases at the time for the non-Biafra side of the story. I did hear, several weeks later, from Biafra's first "replacement" singer, Brandon Cruz, who sent me an e-mail that parroted the Pepperell line. It should be noted that Cruz quit the band, and the Dead Kennedys article on Wikipedia does state that creative differences were to blame. I understand that those creative differences consisted of East Bay Ray's refusal to add other material to the set list or consider writing new material. In any event, the Dead Kennedys camp have been avoiding all press for the past few years unless the article can make them look good and Jello Biafra look bad. "Bob"'s actions on the Dead Kennedys-related articles are no different.

In short, I have shown good faith with my contributions to Wikipedia over the past couple of years. I believe that LGagnon has as well. As the primary editor of Jello Biafra's article when it was up for Featured Article Status, he tried to discuss the matter with "Bob". "Bob" said little to L and nothing at all to me, but called us both out on this cabel. That was a definite lack of good faith on "Bob"'s part.

I believe that if this case is found in "Bob"'s favor, the NPOV slant of all the Biafra/Dead Kennedys-related articles will then be severly compromised. Therefore, I wholeheartedly recommend that this matter be closed and that "Bob" be prevented from making further revisionist vandalism on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, CJ Marsicano, 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The "POV" that Ray (or whoever is representing Ray here) has a problem with is cited quotes and claims by Jello Biafra, which are not POV as they are simply mentioned as statements, not as facts. Additionally, Ray has deleted facts that had nothing POV about them (see [1] and [2]).

What's worse, he cites no sources in his edits, and instead expects other editors to look them up when the burden of proof is put on him. When he does mention sources, they are biased in favor of Ray (two of them, Deadkennedys.com and deadkennedysnews.com, are owned by Ray himself). While these sources can be used to show Ray's opinion, they can not negate competing sources as Ray has suggested. As Wikipedia strives to show both sides of a debate on controversial subjects, it would not be fair to delete information on Biafra's views just because Ray doesn't like them. Furthermore, it does not matter what a court of law claims to be true; what matters is that we have presented the facts, and the facts of the matter are that Biafra holds an opinion different from the court, which does belong in the articles relating to the court cases. Additionally, there are several facts that make Ray's arguments look questionable (for instance, he claims the rights to writing all the DKs' songs, including "MTV Get Off the Air", while claiming he should have been featured on MTV), and it would not be POV for us to mention these in the articles.

What Ray is arguing for is not to fix a POV problem, but to create one. He is merely an astroturfer, trying to wreck the NPOV status of the articles because the true facts make him look bad. -- LGagnon 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the primary issue here is that the Dead Kennedys are claiming that since they technically have the law on their side, then they should logically be able to say whatever is in their court documents. However, this is not a logical claim, since the American Justice System is just that--it does not, and never has represented truth; if it did, there would be no "controversy" surrounding any of the famous cases of the past century; there would be no controversy surrounding the death penalty; there would be no controversy surrounding abortion; there would be, in fact, very little controversy at all. As all can clearly see, this is quite ridiculous. --(don't know my IP address)