Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kevin Folta

Kevin Folta

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Kevin Folta

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Is a lack of evidence of any connection between Monsanto et al and Kevin Folta evidence of a lack of any connection.
 * 2) 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)
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree, though I don't know if it'll do much good. Silver  seren C 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 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)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * 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)