Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ForrestLane42

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• ForrestLane42 (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

ForrestLane42's edits consist largely of personal attacks, incivility and a habitual failure to assume good faith. The user is disrupting the talk page of the Ken Wilber article.

ForrestLane42 needs to contribute positively to Wikipedia, or else reconsider his involvement with the project. He or she needs to stop attacking editors personally, and stop questioning editors' good faith. Most of all, he needs to take responsibility for his actions.

ForrestLane42's behavior almost entirely consists of violating Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:SOCK, WP:HAR, WP:BITE). Of greater concern, his edits are becoming progressively more abusive, and his substantial contribution to Wikipedia, which has always been minimal, is becoming progressively less substantial.

It is highly likely User:Truthiness406 is a sockpuppet of User:ForrestLane42. Possibly User:Thecroaker, also.

This list goes backward in time; earlier edits are towards the bottom of the list.

1. failure to assume good faith: "And there is nothing to ignore, because you ignore the fact that any source I use to back up, you will refute because it doesnt fit your vision."
2. failure to assume good faith: "multiple people have had trouble with my content because there are multiple pro-wilber biases here. Procrastinator, wait til someone who is not involved in the wilberian community makes an edit and then you will see that an agenda is involved in this page."
3. accuses other editors of owning article; fails to assume good faith: "By your expected response of its my responsibility to show the proof, by the way I attempted too but my sources don't trump your desire to defend Wilber from his critics. In the end, the sentence could have been saved or fine tune but since you seem to own the page, it wont happen. By the way, would you allow any edit I did to stay, say even correcting a misspelling, I bet not."
4. fails to assume good faith: "Here is a website as a source that Wilber and the scientific method don't match, but it doesn't matter since you will dismiss it as being biased, etc, etc. So what's the point of giving your sources when you will cherrypick which sources are hannitized to your liking....In the end, this page of Ken Wilber is of the Wilberians, by Wilberians, and for the Wilberians. No one can change that."
5. falsely threatens to leave integral wiki-pages
6. asserts that mediation has no chance of success
7. refuses mediation
8. ForrestLane42's response to Goethean's request to stop attacking editors personally: "Would love to have civility, but you and gadrane have never been respectful to me in the first place"
9. accuses Gadrane of being a sockpuppet of goethean (no evidence cited). Gadrane has explicitly denied any such connection.
10. multiple personal attacks: "...you are pushing your PRO-WILBERIAN agenda...You are pushing only your agenda and do not seek to have an honest debate about anything related to Wilber. Have fun with ruining everyone's work on here..."
11. belligerence
12. personal attack, incivility: "...And lastly, have you noticed that every single time I make an edit, you seemingly have a problem with it? Do you reserve your scrutiny for other editors, such as Dseer, goethean, etc? It can't be just the fact that you think I'm pushing POV, because its obvious you are pushing your POV as well, so why single me out in bad faith?"
13. goethean has "powerful friends"
14. Claims that goethean is "abusive and arrogant"
15. ForrestLane42's furious, overblown reaction to an edit that Goethean made and which Goethean then immediately reverted
16. claims that goethean is biting a newcomer (ForrestLane42)
17. belligerence over Goethean removing his personal attacks from a talk page; accuses User:Gadrane of personal attack (no evidence cited); threatens to leave article
18. accuses Gadrane of sockpuppetry
19. accuses Gadrane and Goethean of sockpuppetry
20. Belligerence
21. Attempts alliance with perma-blocked user
22. Asks admin to look into his accusations of sockpuppetry (no evidence cited)
23. ForrestLane42 claims that he got blocked for 3RR because Goethean has "friends in high places"
24. ForrestLane42's reaction to the charge of hypocrisy
25. ForrestLane42 got the URL for Goethean's personal blog from perma-blocked user and is discussing it on Goethean's talk page
26. ForrestLane42 scolds Goethean for removing personal attacks made by perma-blocked user from Goethean's talk page (despite the fact that he consistently removes all negative material from his)
27. Accuses Gadrane of being a meatpuppet of Goethean
28. Accuses Gadrane of POV editing
29. Complains that no one listens to him
30. Accuses Gadrane of editing in bad faith
31. makes a request for investigation into Goethean and Gadrane; Accuses Goethean of being abusive; no evidence cited
32. When Gadrane attempts to engage ForrestLane42, Gadrane is "twisting [ForrestLane42's] words”
33. Accuses Goethean and Gadrane of "being in league with each other"
34. When asked to use correct terminology, ForrestLane42 says that request "reflects [Gadrane's] POV"; accuses Gadrane of harrassment
35. ForrestLane42's reaction to being blocked for 3RR: he is being "unfairly singled out"; no evidence cited
36. Vague accusation of bad faith
37. Accuses Gardrane of "disturbing the peace"
38. ForrestLane42's reaction to Goethean's warning Gadrane (supposedly Goethean's sockpuppet!) not to break 3RR.
39. Accuses Goethean of harassment
40. Implies that Goethean is using a sockpuppet
41. Accuses Gadrane of being a sockpuppet
42. Bites Gadrane, a newcomer
43. Using the guilt by association fallacy (in regard to subject of article)
44. ForrestLane42's belligerent response to some research Goethean did on Wilber at the Library of Congress website
45. ForrestLane42 claims that he is an inexperienced newcomer, and that Goethean has a volatile history
46. ForrestLane42’s response to Goethean's request for him to stop making false claims in edit summaries
47. accuses goethean of assuming bad faith (no evidence cited), in fact ForrestLane42 doesn’t seem to understand the concept
48. accuses Goethean of leveling personal attacks (no evidence cited)
49. demands apology from Goethean for accusing him of sockpuppetry
50. ForrestLane42’s response to Goethean's simple, civil question (how did he find himself at the Chicago Humanities Festival?) is to accuse Goethean of failing to assume good faith, of smearing him, of being disruptive, etc. No evidence cited. Then he requests “action” from admin
51. Claims that Goethean should issue a “public apology” for "smearing" ForrestLane42’s reputation
52. admits that Chicago Humanities Festival AFD was in retribution for Goethean's “insulting his reputation”
53. Accuses goethean of smearing ForrestLane42’s integrity, harassment, etc
54. ForrestLane42 nominates an article for deletion solely because Goethean created the article
55. Accuses Goethean of not assuming good faith, incivility, vendetta (no evidence cited); claims that User:Truthiness406 was a friend using ForrestLane42’s computer.
56. claims that Goethean is editing in bad faith (no evidence cited); and that another user was a friend working from his computer.
57. Claims User:Truthiness406 was a friend using his computer
58. Denies he is harassing Goethean
59. Blanked the Chicago Humanities Festival article
60. Fails to assume good faith
61. Accuses Goethean of owning article; defends his deletion of entire paragraphs from article
62. Accuses Goethean of working in bad faith; of owning article; speculates that Goethean is Ken Wilber, the subject of the article; invites Goethean to leave Wikipedia
63. Accuses Goethean of editing in bad faith
64. Accuses Goethean of editing in bad faith

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:CIV
4. WP:SOCK
5. WP:HAR
6. WP:BITE

(provide diffs and links)

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ken_Wilber
2. Goethean informs ForrestLane42 of mediation
3. ForrestLane42 refuses mediation
4. Also, User:Eleuther and User:Larry V attempted informal mediation.[1]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. — goethean ॐ 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Grey 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

To whom this concerns, I believe this is a biased and concentrated effort to harass me. If you look into goethean and his edits and his friend grey's edits (and I honestly do have a hunch that they are one and the same) there will be a consistent effort to hinder my edits, to act out against me because my views on the page in question differ. If it pleases adminstrators, I will respectfully, withdraw from contact with goethean and grey, by not editing Ken Wilber page. I honestly feel that goethean's consistent effort is to get me into trouble, so I won't play in his sandbox. As for his detail of 60 actions of my editing, someone of them are so out of context for instance 49 to about 62 are just mainly either teken out of context, goethean assuming that i was stalking his articles, which is blantly false, in reference to Chicago Humanities Festival - this editor saw little use for it the way it was as a stub, acted in blanking it when still learning how to use wikipedia and was admonished i believe from eleuther. If you look at his list, the way he writes about my crimes against wikipedia illustrate how abusive goethean has been in editing towards me and I venture to guess others he disagrees with, it is no surprise that he has been involved with many other disputes i.e. Zen, political bias etc.

I would like him and grey to promise not to stalk me or harrass me on the wikipedia and I promise to do likewise. When goethean offered 'mediation' I rejected it because it was intended in my belief to have the cards stack against me. But if goethean and grey can leave me alone I will gladly do likewise. Truly, I do not have the energy to present a list like goethean does, because he truly knows how to navigate wikipedia language better than I, but my grip with both of them from the beginning is that they edit without approval on a controversial page, and then ask me who edits to prove myself, if I have to prove my edits, they have to do likewise, which they have not done. Its a double standard. All I ask is goethean and grey to leave me alone and I will do likewise. I just wish that they would engage in civil discourse rather than iron editing.

I would like to point out that I have looked at all the outside views and must humbly submit that at times I agree I have been antagonistic but as someone mentioned I have tried to counter balance what I see as a pro-wilber bias. I apologize that I have let goethean and grey get the best of me at times. In reference to sockpuppetry on my part, first off I am not either Truthiness406 this was a friend on my computer - which I was admonished about and it NEVER occurred again. As well as goethean's allegation that I am "TheCroaker" which is not true since I can't speak a word of Russian, so I don't know what thats about, way left field. ForrestLane42 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

• I have not followed the Wilber article or its Talk page very closely since early in the year. However, based on my previous experience, and a browsing of the recent discussion, I'll say this: there is a lack of civility on the Wilber page and its Talk page, and User:ForrestLane42 is often needlessly personal and combative in his comments. To be fair, however, the same should be said of User:Goethean. The source of the dispute, as I see it, is that the majority of editors on the Wilber page are largely in agreement with, or at least strongly sympathetic to, Wilber's views. ForrestLane42 is the only active editor on the page who is overtly unimpressed by Wilber's ideas. Thus the disagreements on the page have spiraled into personality struggles, with ForrestLane42 seeing himself, I suspect, as a lone voice of reason beleaguered by fawning Wilberites. However, to my perception, only Goethean fits this stereotype of the uncritical Wilber-believer. (And some of Goethean's reactions to less-than-Wilber-flattering edits border on violations of WP:OWN.) As a result, despite ForrestLane42's uncivil behavior and occasionally unreasonable edits, I would take Goethean's claims against ForrestLane42 with more than a few grains of salt. 271828182 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 271828182 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have contributed occaisonally to the Wilber page, but I tend to avoid the sort of verbal trench warfare approach that unfortunately characterises much of the Wikipedia talk pages. I appreciate it is a necessary evil that is part of the wikipedia editorial process, but I myself find this sort of thing counterproductive. Especially where emotions get stirred up, as they inevitablty do in any discussion involving highly polarised opinions. I have however corresponded with both Goethean and Grey in a non-Wikipedia context and I can assure ForrestLane that they are indeed two different people. Regarding 271828182's allegation that Goethean is an uncritical wilberite, I also know that this is untrue. For one thing, Goethean was supportive of my additions to the Wilber criticism section. I do not know ForestLane well enough to make any judgment on his competence in or lack thereof in discussing Wilber's work. It should however be pointed out that Wilber is perhaps the most difficult of all New Age / Alternative Paradigm thinkers to discuss (I for one feel uncomfortable trying to critique anything more than the broadest aspects of his work, because I invariably miss the nuances). I consider Goethean to be not only competent in presenting Wilber's ideas, but also an editor of integrity who is simply trying to provide the best NPOV perspective on Wilber; presenting neither glowing praise such as one might find on some pro-Wilber forums, nor rejection of Wilberian ideas outright because they don't fit the consensus academic paradigm. It's the job of Wikipedia to provide an unbiased coverage that is informative and neither a promotional endorsement nor one-sided dismissal. Personally I think the current Wilber page gives a very good coverage, including both pro- and anti-Wilber sections. M Alan Kazlev 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. M Alan Kazlev 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. — ignisscripta 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Additional Comment: Any matters relating to Wilber have a resounding adiaphoria for me, and, consequently, I have contributed not at all to its pages. This notwithstanding—and I have read a considerable portion of the ongoing reappraisals and outright slanderous schemes on Talk:Ken Wilber (it was noted by User:Goethean himself on the Wilber talk page he is not a Wilberian, and the false basis that he is "pro-Wilber" has comprised much of ForrestLane42's mendacious allegations, excluding the ones that have no basis whatever)—I have considered the two parties here and their crucial and telling interactions. The result to my mind is most in accordance with Kazlev's above summary on the issue. All these considerations aside, I strongly suggest that both parties under any and all circumstances make the attempt for a genuine reconciliation. I, in any case, am also of the opinion that much of ForrestLane42's behavior (even outside the Wilber pages) has been inept and also sorely bespoke of an individual who is without any sense of self-presentation and self-respect in light of his/her endless, and paranoid, declamations and the like, which ultimately resulted in this sound request for comments on a salient and bothersome issue. That one is a new user is never an excuse for flagrant and thoughtless talk towards other editors—Wikipedia was never designed for monotonous blathering, meant to incite distrust and to retard growth, but for the creation of encyclopedic articles—no matter how contrary those editors may appear. The extent that an editor appears contrary to another is inversely proportional to the latter's understanding of this fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, and it is here I disagree with Kazlev's assessment that it is a "necessary evil", for that gives it too much credit.[reply]

• I too have seen no evidence that Goethean and Grey are the same person. I found Goethean supportive when Backface was deleting criticism of Wilber, and found that Grey after some initial conflict was willing to work with me on the complex matter of incorporating KWs endorsements of controversial gurus. I would rather we work together to develop a concise article that addresses key points, and not try and create a definitive assessment of KW, but show the reader what to consider. --Dseer 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Dseer 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 271828182's view the most, but would like to extend it (and Dseer]'s comment) to point out that Goethean seems to be trying to exhaustively document Integral thought in Wikipedia, down to what I would consider the minutia of Integral thought. Personally, I don't think it is all notable, but as I am not familiar enough with the subject material, it is very difficult to know what is essential (and notable) from that which is not.

User ForrestLane42 has, in my opinion, been performing a necessary function of contesting Goethean as he/she adds material that may or may not be appropriate or notable, though usually in a less than ideal way. So, although it would appear tha ForrestLane42 is stalking Goethean, I think there is a valid reason for him to be doing so as a check on Goethean's additions, though perhaps not quite so vigorously or with as poor manners.

Hope this helps to put the dispute into context.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pro crast in a tor 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once again, i find myself more or less agreeing with Pro crast in a tor. personally i have nothing against either Goethean of ForrestLane42. and while i do find ForrestLane42's comments to be, quite often, unnecessarily antagonistic, he is a necessary counterbalance, i think, to the uncritical approval of things Wilberian that some editors tend toward.

User who endorse this summary:

1. Metanoid (talk, email) 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.