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?
Who else is involved in the disagreement?
Briefly, what's the problem?
Dispute over the appropriateness of the lead photograph for the Mother article.
...What's keeping it from being solved?
Kafziel insists that the lead photograph must be Migrant Mother.
...What do you want fixed?
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
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)