Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Seth Mahoney and Nihilism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Seth Mahoney and Nihilism

Seth believes there should not be a link to the net's oldest page on Nihilism. He hasn't given a reason for this except that he disagrees with the viewpoints on the page. I consider this abusive and would like to to know if others agree. He's now deleted the link 8-10 times and has still not given a reason. I'd like to have a clear reason for (a) the deletion and (b) why Seth's unprofessional, destructive and worryingly vengeful behavior is tolerated. Thank you in advance. 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I believe I have deleted the link more than 10 times, and its continual addition to the page is something I consider barely above spam. It is not thematically related to the page at all (the only similarities being references to Nietzsche and the word 'nihilism'), it has a history of making factually inaccurate claims, and doesn't represent what it claims to represent. I've given all these reasons on Talk:Nihilism (with the exception of calling the link spam), and the only responses have been Prozak's and his friends'/sockpuppets' trolling (a worthwhile place to look regarding this would be the vandalism and flaming initiated by many of the people "arguing" for's inclusion on Talk:Nihilism, all accessible in their edit histories). Further, Prozak's claims that I am being authoritarian and unprofessional on this matter are a little absurd - I happen to be one of the very few people who contributes to nihilism. The only time I've removed contributions were when they were questionable and uncited or grammatically and stylistically supbar, and several of those I moved to the talk page rather than delete outright, in order to encourage editors to clean them up and re-add them. -Seth Mahoney 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
ANUS, or the American Nihilist Underground Society, has published several articles on Nihilism. One, "How a Nihilist Lives," was reprinted in print zine "Air in the Paragraph Line," issue 10. We have been online since 1995 and were extensively represented on bulletin boards for seven years before that. Here are some articles: Nihilism, Philosophy of Nihilism, Nihilism as Holy Grail, Nihilism and How Does a Nihilist Live?. Seth's hiding behind "not thematically related" as a way of disguising what he admits to be a dislike for the page, which he will say is "sub-par" instead of offering meaningful arguments for why it should not be included, while including many other pages of dubious relevance. Seth clearly has some personal agenda here, and it's damaging the quality of WikiPedia's information on this topic. Further, as can be noted through the history, I've contributed to the Nihilism article including the tedious task of grammatical cleanup. Seth, you've clearly got a personal and not professional issue here. 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seth, I don't believe you've said why counterorder is allowed to be linked to but not ANUS. In fact, why does counter order link to ANUS if ANUS doesn't qualify in your little drama? Counter order, in your mind, clearly qualifies, but if they too feel ANUS is worth linking to then perhaps it isn't ANUS or counterorder that is at fault. --Iconoclast 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Extended pending confirmation that all parties accept mediation. Also, the parties need to define the issues to be mediated. If all the parties do not sign on for mediation within 14 days, the mediation will be rejected. Essjay TalkContact 09:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I definitely accept mediation. Here are my issues:
  • does not relate to the topic of nihilism. It is a site professing a superficially enlightened racist/culturalist/imperialist/eugenicist fascism, and this is a topic not covered in the article. It (last time I looked) also contains historical errors and philosophical claims that are just not accurate. When I brought this up on Talk:Nihilism it was ignored, and the issue was skirted by insisting that my real reasons for deleting the link were because I was too scared to deal with their philosophy, or some nonsense. advocates many things, including ecoterrorism and gay communitarianism. You have honed in one one (1) aspect of what is discussed on the site and used it as the basis for a taboo. Not only is that illogical, but it's immature. That's why we're here for mediation: your bad behavior. You failed to point out factual errors, historical errors and philosophical claims that are not accurate. Your ultimate reason for not linking you think it is "sub-par." You'll have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously. You're lying once again, and promoting your own agenda, which has nothing to do with truth. I don't like that kind of bad behavior. It reeks of control 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as, I haven't even checked the site. If it expresses the same "philosophy" as, its link should also be removed.
  • As far as Prozak's behavior, it has been inflammatory from the beginning, as has that of his lackeys/friends Iconoclast and the anon users that have contributed to Talk:Nihilism. Their contributions include, and are mostly limited to, vandalism and trolling, and this is just one more example of that behavior.
-Seth Mahoney 22:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So now debating with you is trolling? My, you're a nasty little coward.--Iconoclast 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be precisely the sort of comment I was referring to above, along with, for example, [1], [2], and [3]. -Seth Mahoney 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Listen-- let us cut the childish antics and stop complaining every time somebody cracks a joke at your expense or doesn't play nicely with you. You moralize anus for your own homosexual marxist feminist beliefs; how strange that something as nihilistic as eugenics is not considered nihilistic because Seth Mahoney, Moralist Marxist, does not like such. Stop thinking you're god and realize that YOU ARE NOT THE PINNACLE OF TRUTH. In fact, the very example of you complaining about my trolling HERE where it is not the place to do is is not to actually to DO something about my so-called trolling, but get petty revenge at me and mr. and attempt to discredit the ANUS. Actually, you haven't said why ANUS doesn't belong, all you've done is used buzz words like inflammatory (I wonder why THAT word comes to mind) and "trolling" instead of confronting the issues. linked to an essay regarding ANUS's brand of nihilism, why haven't you read it? --Iconoclast 04:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Reject: Given the above commentary, I see no reason to belive the parties have a desire to engage in civil discussions or come to a compromise. Mediation requires that all parties involved cooperate to reach an agreement, and I don't see a demonstration that such cooperation is imminent. Where mediation is likely to fail, it is better that it be rejected outright. I strongly encourage the parties to consider an RfC if they have not done so already; this dispute seems headed to RfAr if the current trend continues.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay TalkContact 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
So information about reality is subject to "compromise"? --Iconoclast 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Where the parties are not willing to even engage in civil discussion, there can be no mediation. I'm sorry if you misunderstood the nature of what we do here: We do not hear evidence and issue rulings. We assist parties in coming together to agree on a compromise. I see no reason to belive either side has any interest in compromising. It is not the place of the Mediation Committee to determine who is right and who is wrong, or to decide which version of a page is the correct one, or to decide what information is correct and what is not. That is simply not what we do here. The more I look at it, the more I believe it is an issue for the Arbitration Committee. Essjay TalkContact 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there was no hope of compromise the instant that Seth Mahoney decided to class a website as "sub-par" based on his personal bias. I would argue that he is abusing his position in the WikiCommunity (?) and is therefore being unreasonable. I would like to see a statement from WikiPedia against such behavior, as it is the antithesis of notable, balanced, fair, informative, etc. 04:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, request all you want, but you'll have to do it somewhere other than here. The Mediation Committee is not the place for this; take it to RfC or to Arbitration, but this is not the place. There is no agreement to mediate, we can not involve ourselves. Essjay TalkContact 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)