I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Bei…
Mediator's result:
"Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed.
Wiki<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach>
e <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EA>Zach|
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach>19:20;19:20, 26 January
2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this:
#1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about whether
the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV standards (and
for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked at at
all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is not
bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore, the
"result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker