Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/vivation

vivation

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Playanaut (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. OrangeMike (talk · contribs)
3. Mendaliv (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Vivation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

{{{links}}}

[[1]] [[2]]

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Disputing suggested deletion by OrangeMike because of a spurious and libelous claim that Vivation, a self-applied breathing and relaxation technique, is a cult.
2. Over a very short 24 hours, this has been a prolonged and protracted dispute with editors. Every request by editors has been met. First they required inline citations. Done. Then, they said this was not enough and required secondary sources. Done. And I honestly believed at this point this issue would finally be put to rest. Now user:OrangeMike has escalated the situation by making an unfounded (and libelous) blanket statement that this self-applied process is a "cult". Obviously, this dispute requires much needed mediation, as the editors have so far been entirely uncooperative or helpful. The article has always been written to provide an objective and practical description of what it is. Neutral language has always been a priority for my editing. I have made it clear that I am more than willing to continue editing this entry to fit Wikipedia's standards. But this is hard to do, when the standards bar keeps moving back, and then when I finally meet it, the response is to simply declare it a cult and requesting a deletion.
3. Additional claims have come in from user:Mendaliv that he "strongly suspects" reference material does not mention Vivation by name. This is factually erroneous. Are we to delete article based on hunches? Secondly, user: Mendaliv has now made the claim that I have a "close" relationship to the subject, whatever that means. If by close, meaning informed understanding of the topic, of course. That's why I wrote the entry in the first place! It's frightening to think that the standards being applied here are to encourage that entries are only written by people not close to the topic they are writing about (i.e. not informed). Playanaut (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Addendum - I am not a s.p.a. having editing several other non-related entries on Wikipedia. Most of my editing however has occured on the entry in question, in part precisely because of this dispute, and because it's the only entry I myself originated. Also I would love to see NPOV discussions occur, and calling something a "cult" with no corroborating evidence shows that user:OrangeMike very much does *not* have a NPOV. Playanaut (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Playanaut (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Disagree. This is about a couple of routine AfDs on a fringe topic. Playanaut has a confirmed COI with the organization that promotes vivation, but I do not feel at liberty to disclose my evidence openly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Disagree - routine content dispute which an s.p.a. with an NPOV problem wishes to escalate. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Recommend refusal: No agreement by opposing parties. Moreover, deletion questions have their own resolution and appeals processes and are not particularly suited for dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)
• Reject: For the reasons stated in my recommendation, above. Also, issue is moot since the article has now been deleted; to appeal the deletion, follow the instructions at Deletion review. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)