Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/29 August 2011/Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Where is the dispute?
Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Who is involved?
Main users involved


 * User:CT Cooper
 * User:Tony0106
 * User:Wesley Mouse

Other users who have contributed slightly, and may also be considered as involved.


 * Afro
 * User:Emanuele75
 * User:Grk1011
 * User:Hollac16
 * User:Lukex115
 * User:WABBAW
 * User:Ranma25783

What is the dispute?
Since 12 August 2011, a very lengthy dispute regarding the article Eurovision Song Contest 2012 and what sources should and shouldn't be used, together with allegations that news agencies belonging to the host nation are falsifying details in order to cause widespread disruptions throughout several Eurovision based websites and fansites. The contest itself is being hosted in Azerbaijan, and several of their news agencies are reporting similar editorials about the number of confirmed participants for the show. One editor, however, insists that these agencies are fake, and shouldn't be trusted as reliable sourcing. Reasonable investigations have taken place to check that these news websites are genuine, and all of them do provide a list of employees (editorial staff), which would appear to be reasonable enough to establish creditability and verifiability. By 23 August, it was decided that the discussion has run its course, as the main plaintiff resigned their position within the article project itself. All previous removed content was restored.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
As a friendly gesture, the number of participants for the contest were frozen for a period of 2 weeks, whilst a search for common ground and resolution took place. 2 editors (CT Cooper and Wesley Mouse) asked several questions repeatedly to the main plaintiff (Tony0106) in order to find peaceful resolution and unfreeze the article as quickly as possible. The user however, failed on each attempt to provide answers, and bypassed any questions asked, and simply used sarcasm instead.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
A general consensus maybe required here to establish facts from fiction, so that an article may continue to be worked upon, without edit warring. As mentioned above, the main plaintiff (Tony0106) is constantly avoiding questions, by bypassing them with disruptive and unproductive sarcasm.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
I'd like you to help by trying to get some agreement across all the parties as to how this can be resolved, so that everyone can work together once more in a peaceful and friendly manner.

Mediator notes
I don't know much about the contest itself, but I'm willing to help you all to resolve this dispute. Please indicate whether or not you agree to my mediation in the "discussion" section below. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I generally agree with summary of this dispute, but with a few points. While Tony giving sarcastic responses were unhelpful, that is a user conduct issue, and is not part of this content dispute, and hence I think it should not be directly part of mediation, particularly given that mediation is voluntary. While he did earlier bypass issues relating to policy and guidelines, he has now attempted to address them, though there still seems to be a prevailing attitude that following policy is optional with Eurovision articles. The issue is more whether the evidence against Azerbaijani news sites is credible or not, with this disagreement having been blown up again by an article in ESCKaz (itself having had its reliability disputed in the past). My view on them is not fixed, and may/will change. This is really part of a larger dispute over what is a reliable source in Eurovision articles, and I can present more history on this if necessary. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK here are my answer: I believe it is impossible in the current situation that 42 countries have decided their future participation or non-participation in ESC 2012. If it would be true now, sources like EBU (Eurovision.tv) or at least ESCToday said anything about it, which they don't have. Then when a post on ESCDaily that refers to a website, previously said to be non-serious with the information, which says that 42 countries have confirmed participation, I feel that the information on which gün.az given can not be true. Since the previous year's discussions said that the websites that Oikotimes not enter safe ESC information that has been confirmed and when someone or some say news.az is not a secure source, I feel personally that one can only rely on ESCToday and EBU (Eurovision.tv) as reliable sources. Therefore, I think we should follow them and that obviously informs confirmed and honest news. If it subsequently turns out that things are true, indeed, I am convinced that about 40 countries will compete in 2012, so one can enter it then. But hold on and speculate this and that it has been said before that you should not do so. And therefore I think you have to do in this way. /Hollac16 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm stating exactly the same reasons Hollac16 has mentioned. And I would like to add that I am not saying that the news.az website is a farse. I am just saying that maybe the information of the 40+ participant's list may come from an unreliable source, what I mean is that maybe the article's author got that information from a blog or fan website or speculations from other websites. That's about it. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons I believe to be more crucial to not use this source, is that it seems to go against a number of things we know to be fact (i.e. we currently do not know if Czech Republic is returning for certain, Albania hasn't confirmed as of yet...) and there does not seem to be any other sources which are reliable to support what gün.az's article states. I'm not attacking gün.az, I'm simply saying that that article seems highly unlikely to be true, and it is even more unlikely that over 40 participants have already confirmed participation. Though I do have to agree that Tony is being quite aggressive with his opinion; I believe that any and all objections against any information on any Wikipedia page should be discussed on the discussion page and an even ground should be found before any changes are made, which Tony has ignored and changed the information without an even ground being found. Lukex115 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediator acceptance
Do interested parties agree to accept Scjessey as your mediator? (please sign your response)
 * Yes, I am happy to agree to mediation with as mediator, and thank you for the fast response. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here, I agree with as mediator for this case. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to mediating this dispute. Lukex115 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I. --Spa-Franks (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)