Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Catman Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: Catman Cohen 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 2 a suggestion re: Catman Cohen listing at Wikipedia 2.1 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: Catman Cohen

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Keevaymusic 08:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Keevay Music

Where is the issue taking place?

Catman Cohen listing:

After almost a year in which the Catman Cohen listing had been left undisturbed at Wikipedia, the sudden re-appearance of two particularly antagonistic Wikipedia editors to affix several pejorative labels (NPOV, ADVERTISEMENT, and AUTOBIOGRAPHY) upon the Catman Cohen listing; remove the Catman Cohen photo; and consign it to the PEOPLE category, thus libeling the integrity of the Artist and thereby implicity tainting the high profile social activist groups associated with the Artist. It should be noted that the NPOV appeared shortly after the Catman Cohen quotes were placed on the page -- and those quotes include various inflammatory concepts and ideas that are not popular within the Wall Street and Entertainment industry Establishments.

...

Who's involved?

CCWaters, Russ Blau, and Taretenko (please see DISCUSSION at Catman Cohen listing).

...

What's going on?

It appears to be artist harassment, artist discrimination, and unwillingness to adapt new, rigid Wiki guidelines to the unusual and unique features of the artist (i.e., a mystery albeit real figure with two very real CD's currently distributed across the USA). As indicated in the artist Discussion section (note the FLAGS examples), there are many high profile Wiki artists who have NOT received any kind of pejorative censures, even though compelling arguments can be made that their listings are equally deserving of the NPOV, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and ADVERTISEMENT pejoratives. So the sudden onslaught of Wiki editors' attention toward the Catman Cohen listing can only be construed as retaliation organized by Russ Blau, who is clearly offended by David Goldberg comments aimed directly his way. Since many search engines link to Wikipedia, every time somebody looks up info on Catman Cohen, he or she discovers a Wiki listing that effectively impugns the artist character. If mediation cannot resolve the matter, there will be no other option but to broaden this entire issue into a much more high profile, public debate.

...

What would you like to change about that?

Summary removal of the pejorative labels affixed to the listing, or at the very least a simple NPOV label, but definitely immediate excision of the AUTOBIOGRAPHY and ADVERTISEMENT censures that were mounted in retaliation for comments aimed at editor Russ Blau, by David Goldberg and Keevay Music. If explicit re-drafts of content MUST occur in order to reach resolution, then would prefer they be provided verbatim by mediators, provided that artist integrity is maintained. To date, all attempts to re-edit artist info have failed to satisfy Wiki editors so it really seems that only a formal redraft provided directly by a Wiki editor is acceptable; otherwise, the incessant attempts at resolution become far too time consuming and extremely frustrating.

...

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No problem with private discussions or public discussions of the matter, whichever you choose. Email is: keevaymusic@comcast.net or you can post at the artist DISCUSSION section.

...

[edit] Mediator response

Well, the article has been deleted, so I'm going to close this case as there seems to be nothing to mediate now. Cowman109^Talk 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] a suggestion re: Catman Cohen listing at Wikipedia

Would like to suggest a one or two paragraph STUB for Catman Cohen as a sufficient WIKIPEDIA listing. I noticed that quite a large number of listings in WIKIPEDIA are simply STUBS. What are your thoughts about this suggestion? It seems that a STUB gets around potential objections from the guardians of encyclopdia standards, particularly the absence of birthdate, birthplace, and the artist photo as a figure in silhouette. The STUBS don't seem to be held to the same strict standards as full page encyclopedia listings.

The Catman Project respects the right of WIKIPEDIA to maintain standard encyclopedia format and is not entirely surprised by their objections concerning several unusual features of the Catman Cohen listing. However, with Catman Cohen now listed on well over 100 international websites/blogs today, there is a fair bit of internet interest in the musician and it seems only appropriate that there should be a WIKIPEDIA listing of some kind.

Thank you.

Vickey Asher, PR

24.126.193.239 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe people feel that the issue is that the artist does not meet notability guidelines, and the original article read as a sort of advertisement. Per WP:Auto, it is also generally suggested that people with a personal affiliation with certain articles should avoid editing them in the interest of remaining a Neutral Point of View, and as such wait until editors feel that such a person merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The Mediation Cabal in no way has a final say in any of this, though, and is just an informal process. If you'd like to go about seeing the article deleted, you could go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and had the removal of the article reviewed there. Cowman109^Talk 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your objections. Catman Cohen has an unusual "cult" following (see http://www.myspace.com/catmancohen) that is not comprised of the typical mainstream pop audience. So I suppose notability is a factor insofar as his not having a Top 40 pop audience, by any means. Yet his audience seems very devoted, as is the nature of any cult, and judging by the number of hits at his various websites, he seems to be gaining prominence. The fact that virtually every Tower Records in the USA has carried his CD's is not a minor matter either since there are very few new artists who can make that claim. As for the matter of the listing as an advertisement: I appreciate your concerns and I would suggest that a simple Wiki stub created by YOU or one of the other editors would solve that issue. Nobody better understands the Wikipedia process than you and your Wiki associates so YOU or your associates would be the best arbiters for determining proper neutrality.

But, in the end analysis, it is your final decision and if you feel that his inclusion genuinely undermines your internet encylclopedia, well, I suppose we must respect your viewpoint. But having perused at least 100 random Wiki profiles, it seems you do have some fairly esoteric listings, certainly quite a few names I have never ever known previously, but who I discovered under different category lists.

Thank you for your consideration.

Vicky Asher, PR

24.126.193.239 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, generally people with just cult followings are not covered by Wikipedia:notability (which is just a proposal, so it's not set in stone), but instead editors look for articles of people who are known to a wider audience. Just to make things clear - I don't have the last say on the matter. I'm just another editor, and I personally feel that the article lacked notability when it wasn't deleted, but you can still get clarification on whether people feel whether it should remain deleted or not at Wikipedia:deletion review. Cowman109^Talk 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion