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)
Is a lack of evidence of any connection between Monsanto et al and Kevin Folta evidence of a lack of any connection.
Is there a smear campaign brought against scientists, specifically Kevin Folta, supporting GMOs as being safe.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
Why would Wikipedia take it upon ourselves to decide whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence when Folta's university has already conducted an investigation and unambiguously stated that there is no misconduct? Surely second-guessing external sourtces is the very definition of WP:OR and is doubly unwise on a WP:BLP. This is not something to mediate, it's something expressly forbidden by policy. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Agree, though I don't know if it'll do much good. SilverserenC 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm not seeing specific content mentioned here that's really needing mediation at this time for issue 1 or 2. Nothing on the talk page makes that apparent to me right now, so I think it's better to have a conversation on focused content at the talk page and other noticeboards prior to this option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. My willingness to participate wasn't high to begin with. Evidence: I'm still an IP user. I've initially uttered some thoughts about NPOV on the article's talk page, and those issues were quickly resolved by very capable editors. But now I'm finding myself being dragged in a fruitless debate on very basic principles, which I normally assume as granted. I don't even want to go there, sorry. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I just wandered onto the Kevin Folta article today while looking at the recent history of another editor, and then made a couple comments on things that seemed to be very biased to me, but i am somewhat up on the recent controversy regarding Folta and Monsanto and USRTK, and i am willing to participate in this, i suppose. SageRad (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with apologies if I put this at the wrong place on this page. ArbCom is on the verge of accepting a case whose scope includes the dispute here, and MedCom may wish to be aware of that fact when deciding whether or not mediation is appropriate at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The "GMO articles" case pending at ARBCOM constitutes a related DR proceeding. If there are still issues outstanding when that case is closed or rejected, this may be refiled here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
