Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-03 Johann Sebastian Bach

Johann Sebastian Bach

Request Information

 * Request made by: user:Kemet 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place? The style section of the Johann Sebastian Bach


 * Who's involved? Tony and user:Kemet


 * What's going on? I made some suggestions in the discussion page concerning wording and accuracy, and the situation has quickly become tedious and hot.  I think that the article as a whole is very well-written and accurate.  My only problem is with the style section, which does nothing to inform the reader (other than needlessly worshipful language); at the time of this request for mediation, the section still lacks in accuracy.  I have resisted the temptation to respond to the author in the discussion section to avoid further escalation of the situation, even though the author's depth of knowledge in this section is noticeably superficial when compared to the other sections, and does nothing to inform the reader (please review the messages between the two of us).


 * ''What would you like to change about that? I would like to have the freedom, like all other conscientious members, to make constructive criticisms and edits, without further antagonism from the author.  As you can tell from my other contributions, I have been able to do this without upsetting a hypersensitive author before.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you? I can read messages when I log on to Wikipedia.

Comments by others
Dear Cabal

I am the main contributor to the JS Bach article. I don't understand why this has been brought to mediation: IMV, this is a waste of everyone's time. The section at issue has not been written yet; some days ago I posted an invisible note to that effect at the top of the section. What was there was a paragraph pasted from an earlier version of the article, which is clearly way off the mark; someone else put it there to avoid the look of an empty section.

It was this text that I referred to on Kemet's page as dreadful twaddle, without realising that Kemet had written a second paragraph in addition to the existing one. Kemet felt I was referring to his text, and blew like a volcano.

Two regular contributors to the article have pointed out some problems in Kemet's text, but that is a different issue. These are early stages in the writing of this important section, so we'll need to negotiate the text as it evolves.

It's not a good start to Kemet's role here. Until now, this article has been developing peaceably. Tony 01:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Mediation closed with no action taken. By the time I got involved in the case everything seems to have blown over, and my involvement was only causing antagonization by the one party who still remained. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)