Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nazism

Nazism
 view edit delete watch Filed: 20:08, March 27 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: banned by Arbcom for one year)--Cberlet 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
This is a contentious debate that has rolled across many pages for many months. No matter how many times these issues are thoroughly discussed and temporarily resolved by a majority of editors, after a few weeks the issues returns with text being inserted that opens up the debate once again:


 * Surveys
 * Talk:Nazism
 * Talk:Nazism.


 * 2004 Debate
 * Talk:Socialism/Socialism and Nazism


 * More
 * Talk:Fascism
 * Talk:Fascism/Archive 17
 * Talk:Fascism/Archive_13
 * Talk:The New Deal and corporatism

Issues to be mediated

 * Should the libertarian/Austrian School analysis of national socialism, Nazism, and Fascism as forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism (and even the New Deal of Roosevelt) be considered not marginal but so important and major a school of scholarship as to be placed in various entry leads and occupy a relatively major part of various entries?
 * Is anyone who publishes a book or article on fascism, nazism, or collectivism to be considered a major scholar on the subject, or is it appropriate for a majority of editors active on a page to agree on which scholars are considered the leading scholars and highlight their views over more marginal views?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Do the majority of major scholars of fascism consider fascism a "far-right" form or usually allied with the political far right?
 * Do the majority of major scholars of Nazism consider Nazism a representative form of socialism?
 * Should National Socialism redirect to Nazism or National Socialism (disambiguation)?

Note about Parties (below)
It is possible that some of the editors listed are away from their keyboard, or will disagree. Other editors have indicated that they might opt themselves into this mediation. PLEASE leave this page active for a full seven days, since at least two of us on different sides of this dispute want to move forward. Thnaks for being flexible. --Cberlet 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * - it appears that this user continues to be "away from keyboard" and I propose that if this continues up to the seven day limit that we simply drop this user from the "involved parties" list.--Cberlet 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the editor is not required for the Mediation, then I have no problem with that; please use your personal judgement if the editor will be needed for a resolution. anthony [ review ] 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. -- Vision Thing -- 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Cberlet 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Tazmaniacs 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. DickClarkMises 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. JoeCarson 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. Intangible2.0 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate under a non-MedCom Mediator

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue with as the Mediator. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be delayed until a MedCom nominator becomes available. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed. Questions should be directed to User talk:Anthony cfc.


 * 1) Agree &mdash; JoeCarson 10:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree &mdash; Vision Thing 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree &mdash; Cberlet 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree &mdash; Intangible2.0 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree — DickClarkMises 13:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree &mdash; Tazmaniacs 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Accepted
 * For the Mediation Committee ^ demon [omg plz] 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediating, per discussion with Daniel via IRC; see talk page for Daniel's statement on this matter ~ Anthøny  17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed
 * The Mediation Committee has come to the conclusion that, in light of recent progression in the related Request for Arbitration, this case is no longer suitable for Mediation. As such, this case is being closed unsuccessfully.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny  21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)