Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Nazism

This case is being mediated by AGK (talk · contribs); if involved parties or uninvolved editors wish to contact him, a list of methods is available here.

Archives
Archive 1

Note — Mediator's Statement, Mediation Stage 1, etc..., archived; see infobox on right for information ~ AGK 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Stage 2

Right; I've been watching this case proceed for a few weeks now, and I think it's time for me to get a bit more involved. I've decided to progress to the second stage of Mediation: "Suggested Edits"; the goal of this stage is to bite the bullet and let each party get down on paper (figuratively speaking :-) what they want to put into or take out of the article.

This stage takes the format of "Suggested Edits", or "Requests for Implementation"; I've drew up a quick format below, which parties are reuqested to roughly follow (I'll keep things neat and tidy).

== Suggested Edit 0 by [[User:AGK|AGK]] ==
What I want to implement into the article [[Nazism]] is:
*(line X) "...Lorem ipsum..." → "...Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident..."
*(line Y) "...consectetur adipisicing elit..." removed.
~~~~

===Discussion===

====Support====

====Oppose====

I'll be checking by just as much as previously, but this time I'll be getting more involved, mainly with formatting edits and if necessary nudging parties to get involved.

Questions can be directed to me, via mediums listed at User:AGK/Contact.

My kindest regards,
Anthony 14:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascism

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

This page should feature the main scholarly views on fascism. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on Fascism and ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the supposed edit to be? Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Hitler or Mussolini ever contradict themselves with respect to the fascism of the New Deal? Everyone has "contradicted themselves a lot", but we still quote them. Hitler and Mussolini are great primary sources on fascism. We should point out when they contradict themselves, but the fact that they did contradict themselves on A is not a valid reason to discount their views on B.JoeCarson

And even if it is the case that they contradicted themselves on this point, it would still be worth mentioning that one or both stated "at times" that there was an ideological relationship between fascism and socialism. DickClarkMises 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fascism article already discusses how fascism emerged from socialism. The issue is an over-emphasis on marginal views.--Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not do a good job at explaining the link between socialism and fascism, only the differences. Either way, we should include the views of Mussolini and Hitler on the fascist policies of the US.JoeCarson 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This last view is marginal to the entry on fascism and should not be included. Tazmaniacs 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

As long as Hitler and Mussolini's views on Fascism are included. Some people insist on removing any mention of the US under FDR, even though the two arch-fascists of the 20th century recognized fascism in the New Deal.JoeCarson

• Support (disagree with JoeCarson though - see NOR:Primary, secondary & tertiary sources. Direct quotes from Mussolini & Hitler must be used very cautiously, as they have contradicted themselves a lot, and certainly not to push the claim that the New Deal was fascist (or communist) ). Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

If the edit is not compatible with Vision Thing's proposal.JoeCarson 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Vision Thing

This article should feature all main scholarly views on fascism including one that fascism is form of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

JoeCarson 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not one of the "main scholarly views on fascism" that fascism is a form of socialism. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

Suggested Edit by --Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should feature the main scholarly views on Nazisn. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on Fascism and ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the supposed edit to be? Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded – what is it I am supposed to implement into the article? Anthøny 11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So I suppose we should work out a draft concerning the exact extent of von Mises & Hayek in the article? Anyone up for a proposal? Tazmaniacs 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• JoeCarson 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

If the edit is not compatible with Vision Thing's proposal.JoeCarson 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Vision Thing

This article should feature all main scholarly views on fascism including one that nazism is form of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

• JoeCarson 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I support the inclusion of all notable points of view. Hayek's seems very notable in particular. DickClarkMises 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? ~ Anthøny 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Cberlet's suggested edit is lot more reasonable, IMO. It is not a "main scholarly view" to claim that Nazism is a form of Socialism. Tazmaniacs 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay ~ Anthøny 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Tazmaniacs that it is not a "main scholarly view" to claim that Nazism is a form of Socialism. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Edit not implemented—consensus for this edit has not been achieved; please draw up another proposal ~ Anthøny 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and ideology

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

This page should feature the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, and others with marginal views on Fascism.--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

• JoeCarson 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. DickClarkMises 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Vision Thing

This article should extensively elaborate ideology of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

In what does this change or contradicts Cberlet's suggestion? Please be more detailed on what you mean by "extensively". Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Redundant to original edit proposal. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more and more convinced that this article is an unnecessary content fork. I rather see a large fascism article, then 2 bad separate articles. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose

• Oppose I think this is a bad idea because the subject is so complicated it needs more text rather than less.Cberlet 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

The page on Fascism and ideology has a section on Fascism and Totalitarianism. This section should lead off with the Totalitarianism template link. See: here.--Cberlet 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a minor issue, but I don't agree with such edit because, as I understand it, {{Main}} shouldn't be used in such cases. "Fascism and totalitarianism" section and "Totalitarianism" article are related but "Totalitarianism" is not a spin off "Fascism and totalitarianism", nor "Fascism and totalitarianism" is a short summary "Totalitarianism". Maybe AGK as an administrator, with better insight into policy, can clarify this. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism, National socialism and National Socialism (disambiguation)

Suggested Edit by --Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been a vote that suggests that National Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and National socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be forwarded to National Socialism (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is proper and appropriate.--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The argument between Cberlet and Vision Thing is not very clear here, nor the stakes of the debate. I remembered the vote, but not where it was nor where the arguments may be found. Tazmaniacs 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• JoeCarson 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Vision Thing

National Socialism and National socialism should be redirected to Nazism in accordance with scholarly and most common use. -- Vision Thing -- 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

There is hardly anything to disambiguate about! The Czech and Austrian parties were all funded with Nazi money (and are mentioned in the main article about National Socialism). Czech National Social Party and National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party should be mentioned in National Socialist Party (the former is a social-democratic party, the latter a neo-Nazi party). Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Majority of editors has already voted on this matter. There are several post WWII national socialist groups. Marginal viewpoint. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think voting is a replacement for Wikipedia policy. You have not provided for any evidence that there are other meanings of National Socialism that need to be disambiguated about. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. See also Special:Whatlinkshere/National_Socialism_(disambiguation) and Special:Whatlinkshere/National_Socialism. Intangible2.0 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This only shows that you don't have a clue what "marginal" or "mainstream" viewpoint means. Both Britannica and Encarta call their articles on NSDAP ideology "National socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not every proponent of contemporary national socialism considers themselves a form of Nazism. That alone requires a dismabiguation page. There are anti-Nazi national socialists. Many call themselves Strasserites.--Cberlet 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you see those forms of national socialism as a legitimate forms of socialism? -- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Not legitimate forms of socialism at all. Primarily a handful of right-wing ideologues make that claim. Sternhell is the exception. All major scholars of Fascism note the roots of Nazism in socialism. The roots of Icelandic social welfarism are in socialism as well. So what? They are forms of neo-Nazism, but not necessarily forms of Nazism. Most scholars refer to all post WWII forms as neo-Nazism unless they existed before and continued after WWII. Tom Metzger's WAR group was Strasserite “Third Position,” for example

• "This type of rhetoric is associated with a national socialist form of neo-Nazi ideology called the “Third Position,” a political tendency that challenges globalization as part of a call for organic, localized, cooperative economic systems-rejecting both capitalism and communism (Gardell 2003;

  --Berlet and Lyons 2000; Coogan 1999). This form of neo-Nazism has been carried forward by groups such as White Revolution, the National Socialist Movement, and Volksfront."

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).

“Third Position,” forms of neofascism and neonazism are "rejecting both capitalism and communism," but Fascism and Nazism as they evolved in Italy and Germany ended up "rejecting both communism and laissez-faire capitalism. In neither country, once the fascists were in power, was capitalism eliminated.--Cberlet 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics of fascism

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

This pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on Fascism and ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The Austrians are among the main scholars of fascist economics. Any article without significant coverage of their work is incomplete.JoeCarson 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, see also Peter Temin (who is hardly an Austrian) 1991 journal article "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s" in The Economic History Review. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see that he is claiming that The National Socialist were socialist in practice as well as in name, and this is coming from former head of the Economics Department at MIT (hardly a position out of the mainstream). -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is what is the conclusion of the major contemporary scholars of fascism? Anyone can find a cite to support a specific claim, but in a real encyclopedia, we are supposed to avoid giving Undue Weight to marginal views. WP:UNDUE --Cberlet 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Vision Thing

This article should feature all main scholarly views on this subject, giving the most prominent place to one saying that fascist economies were in essence socialist. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoeCarson and Vision Thing that the Economics of fascism discussion ought to have extensive coverage of the large body of work by Austrians and Neo-classical economists such as Hayek. It is not totally clear to me that the ideology and economics articles ought to be distinct, since one has a lot to do with the other. DickClarkMises 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that the ideology and economics articles should be merged, since the entire matter is predicated on an ideological dispute. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

JoeCarson 13:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Intangible2.0

I still think it is best to have this article deleted, because it does not warrant another article to put forth this discussion. This should all be discussed in Fascism, Nazism, Italian Fascism, Nazi Germany, and Corporatism. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Do you mean that there is not enough material to fill up an article about Economics of fascism? Why is that a fork? Or do you think there should be one article for Economics of Nazi Germany, Economics of Fascist Italy? That might not be a bad idea. But perhaps both would form subset of the original article. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a real danger of the economics and ideology articles becoming troublesome as separate articles. The reason that this is a problem is that I would argue that any political ideology necessarily includes some sort of economic policy. To say that the economic systems in fascism are somehow distinct from the ideology that spawned them is non-sensical. Now, it is certainly the case that nationalism (an ideology to which fascists virtually always subscribe) per se doesn't necessarily entail socialism. However, fascism necessarily entails either the nationalization of or substantive government regulation/administration of the various market entities, so we need to be careful. Now, I think it might be a very good idea to create articles about the resultant economic policies of fascism in various applications of the ideology, including Germany, Italy, etc. Those articles could, in my opinion, examine the actual policies of a particular government historically, and thus offer readers not just theoretical insight about what the result of institutional fascism ought to bring, but rather what it has brought in different cases. DickClarkMises 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, subarticles like Economics of Nazi Germany or Economics of Fascist Italy can be created, however they should only be created when the discussion of economic policy in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy become too large, if ever. Remember that for Hitler, military planning was much more important that National Socialist planning. These issues can only be discussed in articles concerned with strict historicity. Intangible2.0 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascism as an international phenomenon#United States, New Deal and The New Deal and corporatism

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

These pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises, Hayek, Flynn, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on Fascism and ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Most scholars who have written about the corporatism of the New Deal share many of the same views as the Austrians. I agree that Hayek and Rothbard should not dominate the article, but the views covered will overlap siginificantly with theirs.JoeCarson 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is mainly an issue with User:Timeshifter, not of current mediation. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --LtWinters 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

These pages should feature the main scholarly views, including an apprpriate and balanced mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the discussion of these view on Fascism and ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Cberlet 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not aware of any dispute regarding this article. In my opinion, the article is good as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• JoeCarson 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialism and Anti-capitalism

Suggested Edit by Cberlet

These pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on Fascism and ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Note: I'd like specific edits to implement - e.g., change "...XYZ..." into "...ABC...", and so on until what you've given me under "suggested edit" has been satisfied ~ Anthøny 09:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• JoeCarson 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit by Vision Thing

In Socialism there should be a mention that Mises and Hayek see Nazism and Fascism as forms of socialism. Since the article doesn't discusses any socialist form in detail but rather gives description of socialist polices and positions in general, their view doesn't need to be elaborated in detail. As for Anti-capitalism, article should state that fascism is anti-capitalist ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggested edits for the Socialism article are deletion of the following sentence at the end of The rise of the Soviet Union section: In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way.", and modification of the third paragraph of The inter-war era and World War II section in the following way: However, with the rise of Nazism to power in 1933, attempts were made in some countries to form a united front of all working-class organizations in opposition to fascism. The "popular front" movement had limited success in countries such as France and Spain, where it did well in the 1936 elections, but in other countries it failed. The "popular front" period ended in 1939 with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. Some scholars, like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, argue that Fascism and Nazism were simply new forms of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

These views are too marginal to be included on an article about Socialism. Fascism and ideology is the place to talk about alleged relations between Socialism and Nazism, not Socialism. Tazmaniacs 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

• JoeCarson 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of a brief summary of Mises' and Hayek's perspectives on Nazism as a new form of Socialism. Hayek's (a Nobel winner) notability is arguably directly-related to his opinions on this topic. To say that his is a marginal view (unless you are making a pun about him as a "marginalist") is outrageous. To say that his is a minority view isn't quite so outrageous. DickClarkMises 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In fascist studies, the views of von Mises are considered marginal. That a relative of an author is pushing his viewpoints on Wiki raises serious issues.--Cberlet 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? ~ Anthøny 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Marginal viewpoints should not be given undue weight. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I assume you are referring to WP:NPOV? ~ Anthøny 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I cited Undue Weight on purpose. WP:UNDUE--Cberlet 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes a book like The Road to Serfdom marginal? It has easily more than 1000+ cites in Google Scholar, maybe not all agreeing, but certainly these cites are supportive of the claim that his is a significant viewpoint. Intangible2.0 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is how many of the major contemporary studies of fascism cite The Road to Serfdom other than to dismiss it? How many of the major contemporary studies of fascism cite Hayek, von Mises, Flynn, Sennholz, etc.? Merely counting Google Scholar hits has no merit in this instance. Check the leading scholars of fascism--Payne, Gentile, Eatwell, Griffin, Weber, Fritzsche, Laqueur, De Felice, Nolte, Sternhell, Vondung, Rhodes, Redles--and there is little mention of Hayek, von Mises, Flynn, or Sennholz. The issue here has always been WP:UNDUE.--Cberlet 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To best of my knowledge those people you refer to are not economist. How then their views about economics of Fascism and Nazism can be considered more relevant than the views of prominent economists such as Hayek, Mises and Temin? -- Vision Thing -- 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you opposing this edit? I though that at least here we could find a common ground, since we both agreed with a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek. -- Vision Thing -- 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialism and Anti-capitalism: Craft new paragraph

I oppose it because of the suggested deletions. "In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way." I would consider this revision: In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both communism and laissez-fairecapitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way." This is better wording.--Cberlet 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then how about: In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both communism and capitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way." With the rise of Nazism to power in 1933, attempts were made in some countries to form a united front of all working-class organizations in opposition to fascism. The "popular front" movement had limited success in countries such as France and Spain, where it did well in the 1936 elections, but in other countries it failed. The "popular front" period ended in 1939 with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. Some scholars, like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, argue that Fascism and Nazism were simply new forms of socialism.? -- Vision Thing -- 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a good start, close, but there was a difference between the "United Front" and the "Popular Front." Also, Fascism was opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, not capitalism willing to be subordinate to state interests.--Cberlet 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this text:

• In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both communism and laissez-faire capitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way." With the rise of German Nazism to power in 1933, attempts were made in some countries to form a united front of all working-class organizations in opposition to fascism. A broader "popular front" movement had limited success in countries such as France and Spain, where it did well in the 1936 elections, but in other countries it failed. The "popular front" period ended in 1939 with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. Some scholars, like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, argue that Fascism and Nazism were simply new forms of socialism.

Whadaya think?--Cberlet 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up.JoeCarson 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your version. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that version. But isn't anti-capitalism communism? Marx said that "communism is against capitalism, and capitalism will eventually fail and be replaced by perfect communism."--LtWinters 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

<----------Logical fallacy in above post. All communists are anti-capitalist, but not all anti-capitalists are communists.--Cberlet 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Absence

Good evening (GMT time); apologies for my absence over the past few days, both here and on Wikipedia. Regretfully, this lack of editing will have to continue until further notice, mainly due to the fact that I'm simply too busy in real life to devote the time I'd like to at Wikipedia.

Hopefully I can continue Mediation soon, but until such times I'm going to place this case on hold (unless another Committee member wishes to take up my duties until such times as I can return.

Once again, my apologies and if you wish to contact me, email may be a slightly faster option: see my contact page for details.

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)