Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-26 Mother
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Mother |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Unknown |
| Comment | re-closed, should not have been reopened. |
Where is the dispute taking place?[edit]
Who else is involved in the disagreement?[edit]
Briefly, what's the problem?[edit]
Dispute over the appropriateness of the lead photograph for the Mother article.
...What's keeping it from being solved?[edit]
Kafziel insists that the lead photograph must be Migrant Mother.
...What do you want fixed?[edit]
I would like to see a photograph chosen which is more neutral on its impression of motherhood than a famous photograph of the Great Depression.
Discussion[edit]
I think this user has mistaken mediation for arbitration. I've already said I won't accept mediation, so that's pretty much the end of this. David, mediation doesn't choose sides or make decisions.
The photo is a featured image, in the public domain, created by a notable photographer, of a notable subject, has numerous reliable sources to back it up, and is clearly not self-promotion under the terms of the Image Use Policy. The other ones are amateur shots and self-promotional, not significantly better than this one somebody tried to add last week. I don't insist that the lead photo must be Migrant Mother; I've already said that if another free-use featured image of a verifiable mother can be found, that would be fine. I've already explained how NPOV doesn't apply but I was ignored, as was a third opinion, so I don't see anything else to discuss. We're certainly nowhere near needing mediation on this. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that. However, I'm hoping that if someone independent can confirm that I just might have a point, you'll soften your stance somewhat. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to mediate this case, if you would like. Please let me know. Thanks! Mononomic (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mononomic, Kafziel has indicated that he will not participate in mediation as he feels it is premature. Which is why I closed the case, as I am now doing again. //roux 02:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- You do have a point, Roux. However, User:DavidBailey has expressed a desire for "someone independent". This is why I reopened the case, but I do appreciate your opinion. I assumed that one of the case's parties had closed the case, not an outside party. Mononomic (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mediation only works if both sides of the disagreement wish to participate. We are not here to say "You're right" or "You're wrong"; our job is to facilitate a discussion, guide it where necessary, point out relevant policy if appropriate. But the bottom line is that we just referee a discussion between two (or more) people and help them work out an answer themselves. David Bailey was the only party wishing mediation, so it's not a MedCab case. I understand your mistake--but it's probably best to check the page history before reopening a closed case. Cheers. //roux 06:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- You do have a point, Roux. However, User:DavidBailey has expressed a desire for "someone independent". This is why I reopened the case, but I do appreciate your opinion. I assumed that one of the case's parties had closed the case, not an outside party. Mononomic (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)