Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inversion (music)

Analytical notation for 6/4 chords

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

One party has withdrawn their agreement to mediation; user conduct requests for comment filed

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 15:46, June 20 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Articles involved

Inversion (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Issues to be mediated

My contention that Image:Common Cadential Progression.png should be removed as an unacceptable privileging of a POV that is contested by many experts.

Additional issues to be mediated

The refusal by the antagonists to engage in substantive debate about the issue on the talk pages, and their refusal to agree to the removal of the offending illustration as POV.
The refusal by the antagonists to use their software to create a countervailing illustration to post with the offending one, which would solve the POV issue, when I have no such software.
The failure of the antagonists to reinstate the dispute tag when reverting.
The apparent action in alternation of Mscuthbert and Rainwarrior to overcome the spirit of the 3R rule.
False accusations by Mscuthbert that I have engaged a sockpuppet for this purpose.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. Tony 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Agree Rainwarrior 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree —Wahoofive (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related to these agreements. It is now a week since the last person agreed to participate, yet the process seems to have stalled. By making representations or starting some kind of mediation process, individuals risk the appearance of a conflict of interest, which is why the matter has been brought to this forum. I ask that the mediation process move forward. Tony 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Comment: I cleaned up the formatting here. A few subst'ing errors. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to mediate. I have not looked into any aspect of the matter, but I am an experienced mediator (in real life), and am a founding member of this committee. I studied music theory in college, have written some software which converts MIDI to sheet music, and I also teach music to beginners. Please let me know if I should get further involved. I'm here to help! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that—with your background—you'll probably have been infected by this I six-four virus. But really, your own opinion shouldn't be relevant to your role as mediator. So I'm happy to give it a go. Tony 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, my system is immune to most viruses ;-) Anyone else mind if I volunteer. If not, how shall we all get started? On a talk page, a private Google Groups discussion, or just email? --Uncle Ed 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to talk! Thanks for taking the time to help--I appreciate it. I had suggested on this talk page that we discuss at the inversion talk page and I think that that was something we all agreed on. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with here—on neutral territory? Tony 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing -- it doesn't really matter. Frankly, I don't think anyone cares where. Sure here. What makes Inversion non-neutral? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out of touch for a week or two and I must say I'm disappointed that there hasn't been any further action. But this section includes the problem in a nutshell: note Tony's comment above, knowing nothing about Ed except that he took music theory in college, assumes he has the WRONG view. That is, every music school teaches the WRONG view. This sounds remarkably similar to a flat-earth proponent. Something most colleges teach is "infection" by a "virus"? What kind of approach to knowledge is that? I think there's something to Tony's view, but this bald assertion that everyone who disagrees with him, including respected scholars, is just WRONG is why we need mediation. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal comments; we can deal with the personal stuff after the content issue is resolved. Tony 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.