Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/vivation

vivation

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

[] []

Issues to be mediated

 * 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

 * 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. —/M endaliv /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 &#124;  Talk  22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * 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)