Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism

message: Is it proper for others to add editors after the mediation request is filed? See user:Strothra.--Cberlet (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're part of the discussion. Someone should notify Strothra. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the unilateral inclusion of Strothra. Unless Strothra comes here and adds their name to the list, I object to the inclusion of another party by someone other than the editor who files the Request for Mediation.--Cberlet (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you object to his inclusion? He was involved in the dispute in the beginning. And how do you expect him to know about this mediation? It's not like it has been added on the Talk:Neo-Nazism page. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The first part is correct, and the second part is generally considered correct. If you disagree with the mediation because of the party list and can't reach a resolution on this talk page, it is your perojative to remove your agreement to mediate. Short of that, the case will be accepted. However, as I noted, it is generally accepted that only involved parties and not interested people who have given one or two comments are listed as "parties". Daniel 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I am going to remove the new addition, and if someone wants to contact user:Strothra and that editor want to joint the mediation, that would be fine.--Cberlet (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding participants?

message: Wow, this mediation is sure taking its time. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, who would want to mediate us?  :-)  (often takes a few weeks to assign) --Cberlet (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How long?

message: I want to take this case. I had not been active for the long time, but I think I shall be much active now. If you agree to take this case by me, then please accept, so the process may not take long. For the time being, I would like to visit the pages where the discussions held. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 06:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please brief your views as well, what you want to mediate, so it would be easier to identify for me, what an every individual party has opinions about the article contents.  Shyam (T/C) 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start by reading the entire discussion: Talk:Neo-Nazism#Neo-Nazism is an ideology, not just a movement if you want to catch up. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone through some of the links, Danish, Antisemitism, and Book:Neo Nazis and German Unification provided, which clearly mention that the Neo-Nazi is an idealogy as well. I believe, these are reliable sources and can not be ignored.  Shyam (T/C) 09:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not being ignored. They are simply not clear enough. Also, the ideology of neo-Nazism is Nazism (as these sources claim), we have several academic sources pointing this out. Neo-Nazism is just a term for an ideology: Nazism post-WW2. Neo-Nazism is not an ideology, it is a term. Make sure you read the discussion, and not just a few links. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the mediation. Please excuse me for putting a space between the comments, but I have great difficulty reading the page in edit mode otherwise, and tend to screw up my comment insertions.  Would it help if we all wrote a short (less than 500 word) summary of our positions on the matters raised?--Cberlet (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just about my own personal view. Those sources, are not clear enough on the subject. I'll give you one example of one of your own sources calling it an ideology and how it perfectly agrees with my own POV: Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology. This source of yours, is very clear that neo-Nazism is just the name for a contemporary ideology: Nazism. On top of that, I have lots of sources explaining very clearly that neo-Nazism is just a term for modern Nazi ideology. I am not denying that "neo-Nazism" is an ideology, I am simply being very specific and very clear on what ideology it is, rather than just calling it an ideology without context. This Spylab, is what you have repeatedly failed to understand a hundred times over. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to add one point, please write about the contents only. Do not write what an individual has been done previously. Please be mindful of civility and no personal attacks. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 10:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need acceptance by the involved parties 

message: Following WWII, the early neonazi groups overwhelmingly sought to replicate Hitler's Nazi movement. Yockey and others, however, began a new syncretic synthesis of ethno-racialist nationalism. A tiny handful of libertarians and right-wing ideologues continued to attempt to establish that Nazism (and even fascism), was a leftist ideology, stressing the term "National Socialism." The idea that Nazism or fascism was a left-wing ideology or representative of socialism, however, was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars. In the late 1970s, variations began to emerge among neonazi groups. Some still followed Hitler, while others claimed the early national socialism of Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser, and denounced Hitler for the Night of the Long Knives. Christian forms of neonazism emerged (Christian Identity), as did Neo-völkisch movements built around pagan or occult themes. At least one group of neonazis based their ideology on the mythic religious Romanian Orthodox fascism of Codreanu. Some neonazi groups explicitly distanced themselves from national socialism. These movements no longer replicated the form or ideology of Hitler's Nazism, but in some cases were substantial variations. While the term "NAZI" is a contraction of the German language words for "National Socialism," (Nationalsozialismus), there were other forms of national socialism that predated the rise of the movement and ideology in Germany. Thus to argue that neonazi groups today merely seek to restore "national socialism" is an error, as is the contention that the current multiple ideologies among neonazi groups are simply a restatement of Hitler's Nazi ideology. All of this is easily documented using cites to recent scholarship in the field, which has undergone a tremendous shift in the past 20 years, especially in the work of Eatwell, Griffin, Laqueur, and Goodrick-Clarke.
I believe that there are several errors of analysis impeding resolution of this dispute. I contend that the followig statements represent the views of the majority of contempory scholars:
#Neither fascism nor German Nazism are representative of socialism or the political left.
#Fascism and German Nazism are either right-wing ideologies or ally closely with right-wing movements.
#Neonazism today should not be described as simply seeking to replicate "national socialism."  
#Neonazism today should be described as having multiple movements.
#Neonazism today should be described as having multiple ideologies.
--Cberlet (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cberlet

message: This entire dispute started with User:Spylab changing the ideology of the Swedish neo-Nazi group National Socialist Front into neo-Nazism in the infobox, which caught my attention and made me change it back to National Socialism. After that, Spylab took the dispute further to the Neo-Nazism article by trying to get it his way. I recently joined the WikiProject Fascism project, and I've only recently begun working on these kind of articles seriously. So that it for a long time was a claim on the neo-Nazism article that stated neo-Nazism is an ideology (uncited, might I add) is really not a good argument against me in this case. There has been a very long and tired discussion on the talk page of the article. I suspect a political leftist agenda from User:Cberlet, trying to bunch together various political organisations that practise any sort of antisemitism and white nationalism (of any sort) as neo-Nazis, when in reality, it's not that simple. Everything from the Ku Klux Klan to Fascist groups and some Catholic organisations has been included in Berlet's description of neo-Nazis. This is very inaccurate because all neo-Nazis reject Christianity for ideological reasons, like for instance, Nietzsche rejected it, or, because it's considered a Judaic religion incompatible with Germanic peoples because of Christianity's Semitic origins (I'm not making this up, they actually believe this). Neo-Nazism, as has been described many times, is simply a term, or a label, by the media and other non-Nazi organisations, used to describe political groups that practise Hitler's ideology. Of course, there are some minor deviations, such as some neo-Nazis (if they can be called that) who are into Strasserism, but that's not really a good argument for calling neo-Nazism an ideology. Neo-Nazism is of course, simply a continuation of Nazism, which makes it an ideology currently not in power in any country in the world. However, it is inaccurate to describe neo-Nazism as an ideology, because that is just a contextual term for Nazi ideology post-World War II. Despite me providing several sources for this, they have repeatedly been rejected by User:Spylab and User:Cberlet, on the basis of the sources not being reliable (even though they are, and in some cases, academic sources). What's also extremely dishonest, is that User:Spylab claims I haven't provided any sources at all. Now, neo-Nazism is many times called an ideology, but that is simply because the sources calling it an ideology haven't been descriptive enough to explain that Nazism is the ideology and neo-Nazism is the term for it. Neo-Nazism is nothing new, it has pretty much the exact same tenets as Nazism, everything is pretty much exactly the same, except that it's a Nazi ideology practised in a modern era. In his justification for calling neo-Nazism an/several ideologies, User:Cberlet has tried to use this source. This article is about various antisemitic/white nationalist ideologies, of which neo-Nazism is one, and it does not delve into any specific details about neo-Nazism in particular as an ideology, but rather, describes very vaguely, a wide spectrum of different ideologies, of which Berlet has very dishonestly, tried to use this source specifically for neo-Nazism. I disagree that it can be used for this specific purpose. Also, User:Cberlet isn't being very collaborative here. He literally lists a huge list of book titles (Talk:Neo-Nazism#Movement_.26_ideology), expecting us to know what he's talking about, what page he's referring to, and us having instant access to all these books for verification. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fast collaboration project, if we are going to read all those books just to verify a point, no one would be editing Wikipedia because it would take forever. Berlet cannot have it his way by just listing book titles like this, because citing sources by being very unspecific and just listing the book titles, is not how you're supposed to cite your sources; citing sources this way, can be abused on other articles by Wikipedians just adding the title of a book and writing whatever content they want in the article without the rest of us knowing where to check in order to verify the added content. Citing page numbers, and preferably also a short excerpt in the quote feature which is available in the  template is a good way of collaborating. Berlet however, has refused to give us any specific page numbers or passages from all these book titles that supposedly corroborate his point, expecting us to blindly believe him.
:I am not accepting the above summary. I am only looking for the summary related to contents only. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 08:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was related to the content. It's a thorough explanation of the dispute and the content disputed. Just striking it out is not fair. How is this different from User:Spylab's symmary? He didn't even write anything about the content. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 09:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that, I do not want to involve another person's previous act which will be delaying the mediation process. Spylab's summary is of not use at the stage. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so should I write a new summary or what's the deal? — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: EliasAlucard

message: I'd like to accept the summaries of Intangible2.0 and Vision Thing as the good ones - instead of writting my own. Also, the existing first sentencein the lead paragraph is ok with me.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the lattest EliasAlucard addition, the first two points are relevant to the definition of Neo-Nazism - all other points shall find their  place later - not in the lead paragraph.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smerdyakoff

message: The neo-Nazism article should state the fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology, not just a political movement (as per at least 50 reliable references). The article should also reflect the fact that neo-Nazism is not an exact replica (nor an attempt at exact duplication) of the Nazism of Nazi Germany. Cited information should be included in the article and original research should be omitted. Spylab (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spylab

message: Cas Mudde in his The Ideology of the Extreme Right (2000) pretty correctly describes my position in this dispute (in which, btw, I'm not particularly active): "Generally speaking, the terms neo-Nazism and to a lesser extent neo-fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich (in the case of neo-fascism the Italian Social Republic) or quote historical National Socialism (fascism) as their ideological influence." -- Vision  Thing -- 13:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vision Thing

message: Can we move forward please?--Cberlet (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we need a new dude handling the mediation... — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some patience is called for. We have already moved forward in terms of isolating the main issues.--Cberlet (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry folks, I was not able to comment on it for long time. There are some suggestions from my side. The current lead in the article seems good to me. I quite agree with EliasAlucard that Neo-Nazism is not a different idealogy, it may have some deviations from the Nazism idealogy. It would be wrong to say this is a seperate idealogy. The deviations from Nazism idealogy can be listed in the article with a seperate section. I may not be able to respond to these queries till January 22. So, kindly be patient and be mindful of No personal attacks and Civility. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 12:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not how a mediation is supposed to work.  The idea that the mediator can render a decision wihout a discussion is absurd.  We were asked to write a summary, not dfend a position absent a discussion. I protest.--Cberlet (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Berlet, it must be understood, I have never claimed that neo-Nazism isn't an ideology. I have always stated that neo-Nazism is just a term for Nazi ideology post Nazi Germany. The current lead of the article, makes it very clear that  neo-Nazism is trying to revive Nazi ideology (which means that neo-Nazism is an ideology). Look, this dispute isn't really a disagreement on the fact that neo-Nazism is an ideology; what this dispute boils down to is semantics. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you.  A number of published scholars in the field disagree with you. If we actually have a real mediation, we can each present our cites. Please stop telling me what I think. This is not about semantics. It is about research that is ten years out of date.--Cberlet (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was the original issue. We should not forget that.  There are other issues as well. We still need a thorough discussion here, especially for the concerns of Spylab.--Cberlet (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neo-Nazism neither should considered a mere political movement nor mere ideology. It can be considered a derivative ideology from post world war-II political movement. But firstly, it is a political movement and second it has some deviations from the Nazism idealogy. I think, there should be no objections in this regard. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Next Steps?

message: I suggest that the following are reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia:
Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. “Neo-Nazism.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Thomson Gale.
Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).
_______. 2005. “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” In Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Political Religion. London: Routledge.
_______. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
_______. 2001. “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988.” In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Vol.9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. A rev. and expanded version of the 1999 ASA paper for a peer review journal.
_______. 1998. “Mad as Hell: Right–wing Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism.” Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Sociology (XIVe Congrès Mondial de Sociologie), International Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1998.
_______. 1997. “Fascism’s Franchises: Stating the Differences from Movement to Totalitarian Government.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, Toronto, Canada, August.
On what basis are these cites being challenged?--Cberlet (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object the first source on the basis that it is simply self-promotion. User:Cberlet is trying to promote himself by getting his own sources into Wikipedia articles, thereby, increasing his own authority on the subject. Also, since when is Chip Berlet a scholar on Nazism vis-à-vis neo-Nazism? And the other sources, what do they say? Please do tell. How do they differentiate between Nazism and neo-Nazism? Why do you want these sources included and why do you only keep on listing book titles? Don't you understand, that doesn't tell us anything. Please explain to us how they've classified neo-Nazism, and what's written; preferably through short excerpts. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been busy writing a book review for a peer-review journal. :-)  I will start adding pages cites on Friday.--Cberlet (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure you don't forget including citations too. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: There were posted by Spylab on the talk page of Neo-Nazism.--Cberlet (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous cites

message: Nicholas Goodrick-Clark:
:*“This book originated as a sequal volume to The Occult Roots of Nazism in order to document the survival of occult Nazi themes in the postwar period. As work progressed, however, my perspective broadened considerably. Far from tracing faded fascist mystics and redundant ideas, I found that I was actually having to write a new history of contemporary neo-völkish groups and ideology in America and Europe.” p. 6. (emphasis added)
::--Nicholas Goodrick-Clark. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.
Kathleen Blee: 
::*"A number of studies of racist and anti-Semitic groups in the U.S. and in Europe suggest that contemporary white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are less monolithic and ideologically unified than had been previously understood. In fact, such groups have a wide range of ideologies and membership strategies. They range from white-power skinheads who are loosely structured, extremely transient and attract young, fairly apolitical adherents to Klans and neo-Nazi groups which are tightly organized, geographically stable and recruit entire families. Ideologies of nationalism and xenophobia, characteristic of earlier organized racism, now are on the decline as U.S. hate groups foster links to counterparts in Europe and South Africa and as allegiance to race increasingly supersedes loyalty to nation. Moreover, issues of white identity and white culture quickly are replacing those of national identity and economic competition as major themes of hate group literature and rhetoric."Kathleen Blee.
:::Kathleen Bee talks about racist and anti-Semitic groups  which are not ultimately neo-Nazis. So, they (the groups) might not embrace Nazism as an ideology. Therefore, this quote does not support your idea that Neo-Nazism is different ideology if compared to the Nazism.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you interpret the phrase "neo-Nazi groups are less monolithic and ideologically unified than had been previously understood," in that case. Do you simply dismiss this clear statement by Blee?--Cberlet (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More disingenuous nonsense and manipulation from Cberlet. Why don't you just quote the entire statement made by Blee? She wrote: A number of studies of racist and anti-Semitic groups in the U.S. and in Europe suggest that contemporary white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are less monolithic and ideologically unified than had been previously understood. — Don't take it out of context and begin quoting it from Neo-Nazi groups. She speaks about many different antisemitic groups, not explicitly neo-Nazis. Of course, neo-Nazis are not ideologically unified with every single white nationalist group out there. That's super obvious. If you keep these manipulations up, Berlet, I will find it more and more difficult to take you seriously. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, how does this statement by Blee, support that neo-Nazism is different than Nazism? It doesn't. She's just saying that there's a discrepancy in ideologies between different antisemitic groups. Of course neo-Nazism is an ideology. That has never been disputed. What the entire content dispute is about, is if the neo-Nazism ideology is a unique ideology, different from the original Nazism. And I simply believe there's no tangible difference. You have so far not been capable of disproving my position, only been trying to manipulate statements made by Kathleen Blee. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In this book Gardell refers to a “smorgasbord” from which different sectors of the “white-racist counterculture” draw and mix ideas. These include previously more distinct groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, neonazis, and racist skinheads. The ideolgical and stylistic forms include national socialism, the culture of White Power music, the ideal of the heroic warrior, conspiracism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, and White Separatism. Gardell also discusses how White racism is integrated into religion through Christian Identity and pagan Odinism.
====Pro-Hitler====
;List
American Nazi Party 
National Alliance  
;Discussion
*'Pro-Hitler" is an ideology??? I've asked you above - who classified these 'ideologies' and where are they fully described? Without knowing the answers - I really cannot discuss this sub-topic. I've noticed that the most visible and politically most powerful Neo-Nazis - Germany's National Democratic Party is not listed by you anywhere under this paragraph.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Different ideologies among contemporary neonazi groups

message: ;List
American Nazi Party 
National Alliance  
;Discussion
*'Pro-Hitler" is an ideology??? I've asked you above - who classified these 'ideologies' and where are they fully described? Without knowing the answers - I really cannot discuss this sub-topic. I've noticed that the most visible and politically most powerful Neo-Nazis - Germany's National Democratic Party is not listed by you anywhere under this paragraph.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Hitler

message: ;List
;Discussion
=====Syncretic Christian=====
;List
Croatian neonazis (Orthodox Catholic)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Syncretic Religious

message: ;List
Croatian neonazis (Orthodox Catholic)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Syncretic Christian

message: :::"NEO-NAZISM, a general term for the related fascist, nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic beliefs and political tendencies of the numerous groups that emerged after World War II seeking to restore the Nazi order or to establish a new order based on doctrines similar to those underlying Nazi Germany. Some of these groups closely adhered to the ideas propounded in Hitler's Mein Kampf; others espoused related beliefs deriving from older Catholic, nationalist, or other local traditions."
:::--Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. "Neo-Nazism." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Thomson Gale.--Cberlet (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). "Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups." Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).--Cberlet (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between Neo-Nazism and Nazism

message: Note that an an admin has confirmed that User:Smerdyakoff and User:Standshown are the same person. One other account that is a suspected sock puppet of this individual was ruled stale (only because that account's edits were so old) and another suspected sock puppet account was ruled inconclusive. Standshown has been blocked from Wikipedia for edit warring and for using anonymous IPs. Spylab (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a letdown. But, his arguments in this mediation is what matters, not his sockpuppetry. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smerdyakoff banned indefinitely from Wikipedia

message: Note that User:EliasAlucard has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, for — in the words of the administrator who banned him — "racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption." Spylab (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EliasAlucard banned indefinitely from Wikipedia

message: Are involved parties interested in mediating this case. If yes, the I am not able to see them as active.  Shyam (T/C) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am shocked by the conduct of this mediation, Shyam. One party has been tossed out for being a sockpuppet, and you seem to be allowing EliasAlucard unrestrained permission to engage in abusive personal attacks. You remain offline for days and weeks, and then ask where we are. I think you should withdraw as mediator, Shyam. I am very unhappy with the way this matter has been handled by you. --Cberlet (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand. I was not much active at this mediation. This created problems for this mediation. As, I have seen two of the involved person have been banned. This should ease to get mediated properly. If you want, I can withdraw as a mediator, and find it better way. I will still not be much available till March 23. I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 09:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, the mediation was never started, so no, this matter should not be closed. A new mediator should be appointed to actually mediate the dispute. My, and Cberlet's valid arguments and references are still being totally swept away because they don't comply with EliasAlucard's personal opinions. The dispute has always been about  EliasAlucard's blanking of the well-cited fact that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology in addition to being a political movement. Nobody else seems to be interested in the issue. One of the participants who has banned for being a sock puppet (and for other offences) was no more than a cheerleader for EliasAlucard, and only joined in because he has had an ongoing grudge against me.Spylab (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that is what Spylab wants, I will go along. Let's ask that another mediator be assigned.--Cberlet (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not see any gains having mediation. There are no opposition parties, as they are indefinitely blocked. You may edit the page with proper citations. I am going to unprotect the page. Thanks,  Shyam (T/C) 06:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactivity