This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed by: Sunray (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply] The reason given for closure was: unsuccessful. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Involved parties[edit]

1. Sebastiangarth (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Eubulides (talk · contribs)
3. Yobol (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved[edit]

• Vaccine_controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted[edit]

• Multiple discussions on the talk page.
• Request For Comment.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated[edit]

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• The dispute concerns a statement found in the Vaccine Overload section. Essentially, it states that "the idea [of vaccine overload] is flawed, for several reasons". My contention is that the wording is not neutral and reflects an unfair bias, as the disputed hypothesis arises naturally from the principles of drug interaction, and thus does not warrant the same treatment as fringe theories. I have suggested numerous alternatives, such as simply replacing the word "is" with "has been found to be", "has been proven to be", as well as many others, but all have been summarily rejected.

Additional issues to be mediated[edit]

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Parties' agreement to mediate[edit]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Sebastian Garth (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Yobol (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's comments[edit]

I am willing to take this case and have set out some criteria on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Accept.

For the Mediation Commottee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]